ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%

  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
wildcatsboston1984 said:
This is just stupid. I get the logic behind it, but if you want to reform the electoral system do split electoral votes. Each state should get to have their fair share of input on who is President, tying it strictly to the popular vote potentially marginalizes the smaller states. On the other hand, it could potentially encourage everyone to vote because then all votes really do matter, unlike in the current system for states that always go one way or the other.

If Trump wins 60% of the vote in Kentucky, then he gets 60% of the state's electoral votes. The other 40% is split up amongst the other candidates, with a candidate having to receive at least 1% of the vote to be able to get an electoral vote. If it's a state like Montana with only 3 electoral votes and some third party candidate gets 5% of the state's popular vote, well then he gets a whopping 0.15 electoral votes!

It helps avoid the tyranny of the majority on a national scale, but it allows for people in the underrepresented party in historically blue or historically red states to still have their vote actually matter. This could help increase voter turnout because then their vote actually makes an impact. Heck, maybe it even encourages the voter for the overrepresented party to come out to vote to help offset the underrepresented party. Who knows. Having more people vote is a good thing.

I mean for Presidential races, voting Republican in a state like California is basically a waste of time. No chance in hell a Republican is going to be winning that state, so it's completely understandable if someone that wants to vote Republican doesn't exactly feel motivated to get out to vote. He or she knows that the vote is ultimately worthless. If the state splits the votes, well guess what, your vote matters because it can actually help your candidate of choice get more electoral votes.

Of course, I realize this creates a greater likelihood of there potentially being a tie or no candidate getting 270 electoral votes, but if that happens then I guess the overall popular vote can be the deciding factor?
Click to expand...
How would that be any different than straight popular vote? If you are going to abandon the election ideals of a Republican government, then why would Kentucky, for example, want to continue to be apart of the Union? The only thing that makes the union work for each state is the electoral college system. If you move toward popular vote, then it only makes sense for similar sized states to be in union with each other. Otherwise, smaller states have no say who becomes President. Why would any low to medium populated state agree to that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fisherscatfan, ymmot31, augustaky1 and 1 other person
wildcatsboston1984 said:
This is just stupid. I get the logic behind it, but if you want to reform the electoral system do split electoral votes. Each state should get to have their fair share of input on who is President, tying it strictly to the popular vote potentially marginalizes the smaller states. On the other hand, it could potentially encourage everyone to vote because then all votes really do matter, unlike in the current system for states that always go one way or the other.

If Trump wins 60% of the vote in Kentucky, then he gets 60% of the state's electoral votes. The other 40% is split up amongst the other candidates, with a candidate having to receive at least 1% of the vote to be able to get an electoral vote. If it's a state like Montana with only 3 electoral votes and some third party candidate gets 5% of the state's popular vote, well then he gets a whopping 0.15 electoral votes!

It helps avoid the tyranny of the majority on a national scale, but it allows for people in the underrepresented party in historically blue or historically red states to still have their vote actually matter. This could help increase voter turnout because then their vote actually makes an impact. Heck, maybe it even encourages the voter for the overrepresented party to come out to vote to help offset the underrepresented party. Who knows. Having more people vote is a good thing.

I mean for Presidential races, voting Republican in a state like California is basically a waste of time. No chance in hell a Republican is going to be winning that state, so it's completely understandable if someone that wants to vote Republican doesn't exactly feel motivated to get out to vote. He or she knows that the vote is ultimately worthless. If the state splits the votes, well guess what, your vote matters because it can actually help your candidate of choice get more electoral votes.

Of course, I realize this creates a greater likelihood of there potentially being a tie or no candidate getting 270 electoral votes, but if that happens then I guess the overall popular vote can be the deciding factor?
Click to expand...
This won't ever fly. And the people proposing it know exactly why. They also know Hillary would be our President if this had been in use. The reason they want it is that big EV red states are much closer to 50/50 than big EV blue states. The spread in Cali and NY alone would win every election for democrats.

I think people might be more accepting of it if we created some sort of fraud proof voting system that incorporated voter ID and limits all types of vote harvesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymmot31 and KRJ1975
UK_Dallas said:
This won't ever fly. And the people proposing it know exactly why. They also know Hillary would be our President if this had been in use. The reason they want it is that big EV red states are much closer to 50/50 than big EV blue states. The spread in Cali and NY alone would win every election for democrats.

I think people might be more accepting of it if we created some sort of fraud proof voting system that incorporated voter ID and limits all types of vote harvesting.
Click to expand...

This election happened in my adult life and it seems beyond impossible that an electoral map will ever look like this again. Amazing how fast things change.

 
  • Like
Reactions: UK_Dallas
sefus12 said:
I have to think this will get challenged in court.
Click to expand...
states are free to run their elections however they want. Well except the racist states, they are bound to all that anti racist voting law stuff. Electoral voters are already free to vote for whoever they want no matter who the people vote for. Some states have penalties in place if they vote a certain way, other states don't. Every presidential election has token electoral votes for someone they weren't "supposed" to vote for. The idea behind this leeway was the electoral college could stop some maniac from taking office if the people voted like idiots. These days only the worst people run for President and the people only vote for useless idiots so the system can't do much to to check that. So far the electoral college has never strayed far from their states results because that would be "political suicide" but i wouldn't expect that to hold anymore since anything goes now.
 
cat_in_the_hat said:
How would that be any different than straight popular vote? If you are going to abandon the election ideals of a Republican government, then why would Kentucky, for example, want to continue to be apart of the Union? The only thing that makes the union work for each state is the electoral college system. If you move toward popular vote, then it only makes sense for similar sized states to be in union with each other. Otherwise, smaller states have no say who becomes President. Why would any low to medium populated state agree to that?
Click to expand...
those states still have 100% say in who is in congress. If they want more of a say in who is President then they have to find a way to entice people to live in their state. Why should north & south dokota have as much say as texas, florida, cali, ny? they are worthless states of no importance. IF they want to be important they need to merge into 1 state or grow their population.

Their is no real argument against the popular vote. The gop used to be against the electoral college when they country was more conservative. Republicans are only for it now because the country is now more liberal than it is conservative and they would lose the WH for while until they rebuilt the party. But at some point people would get sick always having a DEM president and the power would shift. What balances political power in America is one party having power for to long. Americans like to vote against the party in power because it's easier to blame someone that way. The party in power slowly destroys itself and balance is restored. The only other democratic countries that use an electoral college system are third world African shitholes and they use it to control who gets elected.
 
Last edited:
Platinumdrgn said:
those states still have 100% say in who is in congress. If they want more of a say in who is President then they have to find a way to entice people to live in their state. Why should north & south dokota have as much say as texas, florida, cali, ny? they are worthless states of no importance. IF they want to be important they need to merge into 1 state or grow their population.
Click to expand...
Because each state is a sovereign government. It chose to be apart of the union based on the idea that the people it represents would have a strong say in the election of the President. You are hung up on the idea that we are one unified country. While partially true, we are really a collection of sovereign states that chose to affiliate. They worked out a system that was beneficial to all, otherwise, not all states would have agreed. Our President is elected by the States, not the people. If States will no longer elect the President, then why would many of them continue to be apart of the union? The elected sovereign government of each state would have to look at what is in the best interest of it's citizens. I would suggest that many would conclude popular vote would not be in the best interest of its citizens because they would no longer have a say in the election process. I would disappointed if Kentucky did not oppose such a change and also strongly consider withdrawing from the union if it passed.

I would also suggest if states with large populations want popular vote to elect the President, they should consider withdrawing from the union and associating with other like states.

Let me leave you with a serious question. Would you be okay with the USA joining a world government where the world President was elected by popular vote?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil_The_Music, ymmot31 and augustaky1
If the whack job loony toon liberals like Platinum agree to take 98% of the powers away from the federal government and give it back to the states, I'll entertain the thought of letting CA pick the figurehead POTUS.

Until then, we're a Constitutional Republic, and you can go find a democracy somewhere else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil_The_Music, sefus12, ymmot31 and 9 others
cat_in_the_hat said:
Because each state is a sovereign government. It chose to be apart of the union based on the idea that the people it represents would have a strong say in the election of the President. You are hung up on the idea that we are one unified country. While partially true, we are really a collection of sovereign states that chose to affiliate. They worked out a system that was beneficial to all, otherwise, not all states would have agreed. Our President is elected by the States, not the people. If States will no longer elect the President, then why would many of them continue to be apart of the union? The elected sovereign government of each state would have to look at what is in the best interest of it's citizens. I would suggest that many would conclude popular vote would not be in the best interest of its citizens because they would no longer have a say in the election process. I would disappointed if Kentucky did not oppose such a change and also strongly consider withdrawing from the union if it passed.

I would also suggest if states with large populations want popular vote to elect the President, they should consider withdrawing from the union and associating with other like states.

Let me leave you with a serious question. Would you be okay with the USA joining a world government where the world President was elected by popular vote?
Click to expand...
Sounds like states need to get over themselves and put country first.

If humans on earth actually last another cpl hundred years some form of world government will be inevitable. We will begin conquering space and having countries still fighting over 1 planet won't facilitate that. All of us will be long gone so who gives a shit.
 
Platinumdrgn said:
Sounds like states need to get over themselves and put country first.

If humans on earth actually last another cpl hundred years some form of world government will be inevitable. We will begin conquering space and having countries still fighting over 1 planet won't facilitate that. All of us will be long gone so who gives a shit.
Click to expand...
So that's your argument for popular vote "states need to get over themselves". That's what you say when you have no points to make, but still want things your way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymmot31, duke4life831, warrior-cat and 1 other person
Bill Cosby said:
Might literally be the most anti-American thing that's ever been posted in this thread.
Click to expand...

At least the popularly elected president will be able to force those damned free thinking Dakota's back in line... lol horrifying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rudd1
Platinumdrgn said:
states are free to run their elections however they want. Well except the racist states, they are bound to all that anti racist voting law stuff. Electoral voters are already free to vote for whoever they want no matter who the people vote for. Some states have penalties in place if they vote a certain way, other states don't. Every presidential election has token electoral votes for someone they weren't "supposed" to vote for. The idea behind this leeway was the electoral college could stop some maniac from taking office if the people voted like idiots. These days only the worst people run for President and the people only vote for useless idiots so the system can't do much to to check that. So far the electoral college has never strayed far from their states results because that would be "political suicide" but i wouldn't expect that to hold anymore since anything goes now.
Click to expand...

I can't believe I was about to say "I kind of agree with this" after the insane follow-up. Lesson learned.
 
cat_in_the_hat said:
So that's your argument for popular vote "states need to get over themselves". That's what you say when you have no points to make, but still want things your way.
Click to expand...
with the electoral college there is no reason to even have a popular vote, it is only symbolic. The states electoral voters can technically do whatever they want anyway (within the electoral laws of the state which are generally very lenient). Nebraska and Maine are the only states that require their electoral votes to be split up by their states popular vote. How is that democracy?

Neither the Constitution nor Federal election laws compel electors to vote for their party’s candidate. That said, twenty-seven states have laws on the books that require electors to vote for their party’s candidate if that candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular vote. In 24 states, no such laws apply, but common practice is for electors to vote for their party’s nominee.

What would you guys have done if the electors had decided to not cast their votes for Trump? would you still be happy about the system? Would have been perfectly legal and yet completely ****ed up.
 
cat_in_the_hat said:
How would that be any different than straight popular vote? If you are going to abandon the election ideals of a Republican government, then why would Kentucky, for example, want to continue to be apart of the Union? The only thing that makes the union work for each state is the electoral college system. If you move toward popular vote, then it only makes sense for similar sized states to be in union with each other. Otherwise, smaller states have no say who becomes President. Why would any low to medium populated state agree to that?
Click to expand...
If Democratic Candidate A wins the popular vote, under the proposal, then every electoral vote would go to that Democrat even if the state's popular vote went to a Republican. It effectively neuters what the Republican state votes for.

With electoral split voting, if a state's popular vote goes to a Republican instead of the Democrat that wins the national popular vote, then the Republican would receive more electoral votes than the Democrat.

And of course vice versa if when the shoe is on the other foot. The proposal of the national popular vote determining each state's electoral vote outcome is incredibly stupid.
 
Bill Cosby said:
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ne...ailed-fix-long-term-roads-funding/2978107002/

Contrary to what most probably think, I'm perfectly fine with a gas tax increase to pay for roads (I'd be fine with the same thing for KY even though this article is about Kasich leaving OH in a bind). Ohio roads are HORRIBLE.

However, that money should be earmarked for roads, and the first person that suggests it gets spent elsewhere or borrowed against should be executed in the public square.
Click to expand...
Unless an annual road construction/maintenance fee is slapped on electric & hybrid vehicles also, I oppose. They ain't skating. $200 for electrics & $75 for hybrids would work. Also, diesel tax should be higher than for gas because a) trucks tear the h out of roads vs. cars & b) it pollutes worse.
 
Pelosigalore said:
Remind me of why we are trying to change something that has worked for a while now?
Click to expand...
That would be like saying a profitable business shouldn't grow to become more profitable or that it shouldn't strive to operate more efficiently to increase profit. Just because something works doesn't mean it can't work better.
 
Platinumdrgn said:
those states still have 100% say in who is in congress. If they want more of a say in who is President then they have to find a way to entice people to live in their state. Why should north & south dokota have as much say as texas, florida, cali, ny? they are worthless states of no importance. IF they want to be important they need to merge into 1 state or grow their population.

Their is no real argument against the popular vote. The gop used to be against the electoral college when they country was more conservative. Republicans are only for it now because the country is now more liberal than it is conservative and they would lose the WH for while until they rebuilt the party. But at some point people would get sick always having a DEM president and the power would shift. What balances political power in America is one party having power for to long. Americans like to vote against the party in power because it's easier to blame someone that way. The party in power slowly destroys itself and balance is restored. The only other democratic countries that use an electoral college system are third world African shitholes and they use it to control who gets elected.
Click to expand...
North and South Dakota are valuable agricultural states.
 
KRJ1975 said:
This election happened in my adult life and it seems beyond impossible that an electoral map will ever look like this again. Amazing how fast things change.

Click to expand...

That happened for 2 reasons. 1. Ross Perot divided the republican vote by a large margin. 2. Slick Willy and Gore were from Arkansas and Tennessee and ran as old southern democrats. Take out Perot in 92 and Bush was easily a 2 term prez and who knows what 96 would have looked like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DidneyWorl and KRJ1975
I keep hearing that because there are so many more people in ny and ca, it’s not fair that ND , SD and Montana get the exact same representation. Well, how many people did those states have when the system went into place? Probably weren’t many in ND,SD or Montana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DidneyWorl
wildcatsboston1984 said:
That would be like saying a profitable business shouldn't grow to become more profitable or that it shouldn't strive to operate more efficiently to increase profit. Just because something works doesn't mean it can't work better.
Click to expand...


Hey, our business is working well. We're very profitable. Let's eliminate the board of directors we've appointed and have all the shareholders who don't know a goddam thing about business vote on a new CEO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUJO_1970, DidneyWorl, P19978 and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DraftCat

2024 Official Draft Day Thread

Replies
346
Views
9K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
Katonic
K
SemperFiCat
  • Poll

Lebron a 25 time All-Star?

Replies
26
Views
2K
The Paddock - General Discussion Forum
WayneDougan
WayneDougan
Random UK Fan
  • Poll

Poll: Your Vote For The Next HC

Replies
19
Views
2K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
FtWorthCat
FtWorthCat
B

Kerr Quotes Thread

Replies
32
Views
5K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
bigbluefattycat
B
Bigbluecaleb

Rivals Website

Replies
16
Views
928
The House of Blue
TheySoSensitive
TheySoSensitive
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back