Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[pettie4sox]

22 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

No hes suggesting the Democrats do a fools errand of chasing votes in stats they are unlikely to win. That is actually one of the mistakes Hillary made. Instead of just focusing on WI, MN, PA and FL. She started to branch out into GA, NC and TX, believing that in some world she could win those states too.

Its like Hawk used to say, youre gonna win 60, youre gonna lose 60, its what you do with the other 42 that matter. 

Yeah, I'm still mad Hillary lost to Trump.  She was awful but Trump is Glass Joe in punch out.  80,000 voters gave Trump the electoral victory.  I imagine a Chicago suburbs worth of people will get off their ass and vote this elections in those states.

[caulfield12]

57 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

Yeah, I'm still mad Hillary lost to Trump.  She was awful but Trump is Glass Joe in punch out.  80,000 voters gave Trump the electoral victory.  I imagine a Chicago suburbs worth of people will get off their ass and vote this elections in those states.

Such as Millennials, now the biggest voting block with the lowest percentage of active voters...

[wrathofhahn]

1 hour ago, Soxbadger said:

No hes suggesting the Democrats do a fools errand of chasing votes in stats they are unlikely to win. That is actually one of the mistakes Hillary made. Instead of just focusing on WI, MN, PA and FL. She started to branch out into GA, NC and TX, believing that in some world she could win those states too.

Its like Hawk used to say, youre gonna win 60, youre gonna lose 60, its what you do with the other 42 that matter. 

Worked for Abraham Lincoln people forget he lost the popular vote. Cortez says the EC has it's roots in slavery and it does in abolishing slavery.

Besides it's an actual fools errand you would need to make a constitutional amendment you will never be able to get the necessary support. So like I said earlier instead of complaining the system is rigged and it isn't the Republicans are operating under the same set of constraints as it relates to the EC and Senate they need to find a way to appeal to voters in those states. Or continue to rage. I vote rage

Edited October 8, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Soxbadger]

11 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Worked for Abraham Lincoln people forget he lost the popular vote. Cortez says the EC has it's roots in slavery and it does in abolishing slavery.

Besides it's an actual fools errand you would need to make a constitutional amendment you will never be able to get the necessary support. So like I said earlier instead of complaining the system is rigged and it isn't the Republicans are operating under the same set of constraints as it relates to the EC and Senate they need to find a way to appeal to voters in those states. Or continue to rage. I vote rage

There are plenty of posts on this board where i advocate what the Democrats should do in order to ensure better results.

Doesnt mean i also cant advocate for a better system. Thats the key, you win with the rules that are in place to make changes for the better.

[Quin]

36 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Worked for Abraham Lincoln people forget he lost the popular vote. Cortez says the EC has it's roots in slavery and it does in abolishing slavery.

Besides it's an actual fools errand you would need to make a constitutional amendment you will never be able to get the necessary support. So like I said earlier instead of complaining the system is rigged and it isn't the Republicans are operating under the same set of constraints as it relates to the EC and Senate they need to find a way to appeal to voters in those states. Or continue to rage. I vote rage

1) Abe Lincoln won the popular vote amongst the 4 candidates. 

Lincoln:  1,865,908
Douglas: 1,380,202
Breckenridge: 848,019
Bell: 590,901

2) It does have its roots in slavery. You may have heard of the this 3/5 compromise.

3) Doesn't need an amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[StrangeSox]

3 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

No you are not. First of all her extra vote total can be attributed to ONE state California in fact it can be more then attributed she won California by 4.3 million she won the popular vote by 2.8 million. What I'm saying is the current system suits the US well and was designed that way. It actually encourages you to run a national campaign on the issues that are important to all Americans rather then just run up vote totals among your supporters in metropolitan areas.

Almost all large countries (geographical) are run in this manner. Proportional representation is not the norm among civilized developed nations and almost all the countries where it is implemented do not have the rural-urban divide seen in larger countries. The complete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

There are other choices besides proportional representation and the structure of the US Senate

[StrangeSox]

3 hours ago, Soxbadger said:

No hes suggesting the Democrats do a fools errand of chasing votes in stats they are unlikely to win. That is actually one of the mistakes Hillary made. Instead of just focusing on WI, MN, PA and FL. She started to branch out into GA, NC and TX, believing that in some world she could win those states too.

Its like Hawk used to say, youre gonna win 60, youre gonna lose 60, its what you do with the other 42 that matter. 

If anything, that highlights how the electoral college works the opposite way it's defenders like to claim (which of course was never the original design intent anyway).

Instead of trying to reach the most people in the most places, they're punished if they don't focus narrowly on whatever the "battleground" states happen to be in that election. Even with the electoral college, nobody pays much attention to Wyoming.

[StrangeSox]

2 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

Worked for Abraham Lincoln people forget he lost the popular vote. Cortez says the EC has it's roots in slavery and it does in abolishing slavery.

Besides it's an actual fools errand you would need to make a constitutional amendment you will never be able to get the necessary support. So like I said earlier instead of complaining the system is rigged and it isn't the Republicans are operating under the same set of constraints as it relates to the EC and Senate they need to find a way to appeal to voters in those states. Or continue to rage. I vote rage

The NPV Compact wouldn't require an amendment.

It's also possible to both criticize the failings and short comings of the current system while working within it. Characterize that as "rage" if you want, but it's just a way of avoiding the subject

 

E: beaten by both sb and quin

Edited October 9, 2018 by StrangeSox

[wrathofhahn]

1 hour ago, Quinarvy said:

1) Abe Lincoln won the popular vote amongst the 4 candidates. 

Lincoln:  1,865,908
Douglas: 1,380,202
Breckenridge: 848,019
Bell: 590,901

2) It does have its roots in slavery. You may have heard of the this 3/5 compromise. 

3) Doesn't need an amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

If the NPIV was ever attempted to be implemented it would be brought before the supreme court. I am not an expert on this subject I've read some arguments for and against but I find it hard to believe the court to allow a scheme to subvert the intentions of the framers in-regards to the EC in such an obvious way without an amendment to the constitution. It would also likely violate the guarantee clause of those states who didn't join the pact.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

The other major issue as of right now it's not binding in any way which means states can choose to selectively enforce it. Like I said I find it hard to believe it survive a challenge in front of the supreme court but am not an expert. 

That compromise is no longer in effect and hasn't since the 14th amendment.

Those two bottom of Lincoln were the Democrat party. 

 

[Soxbadger]

27 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

If the NPIV was ever attempted to be implemented it would be brought before the supreme court. I am not an expert on this subject I've read some arguments for and against but I find it hard to believe the court to allow a scheme to subvert the intentions of the framers in-regards to the EC in such an obvious way without an amendment to the constitution. It would also likely violate the guarantee clause of those states who didn't join the pact.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

The other major issue as of right now it's not binding in any way which means states can choose to selectively enforce it. Like I said I find it hard to believe it survive a challenge in front of the supreme court but am not an expert. 

That compromise is no longer in effect and hasn't since the 14th amendment.

Those two bottom of Lincoln were the Democrat party. 

 

It still would be a Republican vote as the electoral college still exists. It merely just determines how the states pledge their electoral vote. 

 

[Quin]

1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said:

If the NPIV was ever attempted to be implemented it would be brought before the supreme court. I am not an expert on this subject I've read some arguments for and against but I find it hard to believe the court to allow a scheme to subvert the intentions of the framers in-regards to the EC in such an obvious way without an amendment to the constitution. It would also likely violate the guarantee clause of those states who didn't join the pact.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

The other major issue as of right now it's not binding in any way which means states can choose to selectively enforce it. Like I said I find it hard to believe it survive a challenge in front of the supreme court but am not an expert. 

That compromise is no longer in effect and hasn't since the 14th amendment.

Those two bottom of Lincoln were the Democrat party. 

 

1) Its states agreeing how their electors would vote. Thats in their right as states - or are you against states rights?

2) Obviously the 3/5 compromise is no longer in effect. However, we're discussing the roots of it. Let's consult Merriam Webster.

Quote

root noun, often attributive
\ ˈrüt ,  ˈru̇t  \
something that is an origin or source (as of a condition or quality)the love of money is the root of all evil

3) Two different Democratic parties, two different candidates. He won the popular vote, unless math is now a liberal conspiracy.

[BigHurt3515]

6 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

So you are saying votes in California shouldn’t count the same as votes in Wyoming or the Dakotas....

So your saying Presidential candidates should just focus on the most populated states and what they want to hear but not give a shit about everyone else in America? Why should an election be up to the biggest state? 

If Trump won the popular vote but lost the election you wouldn't give a shit and would be happy with the election process. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by BigHurt3515

[Dick Allen]

3 hours ago, BigHurt3515 said:

So your saying Presidential candidates should just focus on the most populated states and what they want to hear but not give a shit about everyone else in America? Why should an election be up to the biggest state? 

If Trump won the popular vote but lost the election you wouldn't give a shit and would be happy with the election process. 

I think every vote should count the same. The guy lost by 3 million votes. He himself was against the electoral college. He himself has said  time and time again, the electoral college favors democrats. Of course through out the millions upon millilloims of illegal votes, all not for Trump, and he wins the popular vote. Think about what he says, and how many actually buy it. It really is astonishing.

[pettie4sox]

I don't know guys maybe just maybe a president should try to represent all of the people of the country regardless of their political affiliations?  Trump doesn't even try to play ball, he just wants his agenda or his guy through, and if it doesn't go his way, he whines like a baby.

[StrangeSox]

10 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

If the NPIV was ever attempted to be implemented it would be brought before the supreme court. I am not an expert on this subject I've read some arguments for and against but I find it hard to believe the court to allow a scheme to subvert the intentions of the framers in-regards to the EC in such an obvious way without an amendment to the constitution. It would also likely violate the guarantee clause of those states who didn't join the pact.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

The other major issue as of right now it's not binding in any way which means states can choose to selectively enforce it. Like I said I find it hard to believe it survive a challenge in front of the supreme court but am not an expert. 

That compromise is no longer in effect and hasn't since the 14th amendment.

Those two bottom of Lincoln were the Democrat party. 

 

You're conflating a number of different things again. A Republican form of government does not require any sort of Electoral College. France is on it's fifth Republic, none of them featuring the Electoral College. You've cited Fedearlist Papers a number of times--go back and find their justifications for the Electoral College and the other analyses of the Constitutional debates at the time. The EC was meant to strengthen and embed an aristocratic democracy. It's never actually been used for it's original intended purpose.

8 hours ago, BigHurt3515 said:

So your saying Presidential candidates should just focus on the most populated states and what they want to hear but not give a shit about everyone else in America? Why should an election be up to the biggest state? 

If Trump won the popular vote but lost the election you wouldn't give a shit and would be happy with the election process. 

That's not what happens in other republican countries that do not have an electoral college.

As it is, candidates are actually punished for trying to reach a broad section of the country rather than focusing on a handful of whatever states are expected to be close in that particular cycle. Liberal votes in Texas, Mississippi, Utah, etc. are essentially meaningless. Same for conservative votes in CA/NY/IL etc. Hillary's campaign gets strong criticism for having the chutzpah to expand campaign operations in states like Texas and Georgia, chasing states she'd never win.

Presidential candidates should have to focus on winning the most number of voters. The underlying alternative argument is that the US is "too big to govern" and should probably be split up rather than permanently disenfranchising majorities of voters. We've had a countermajoritarian government from the start. We've undergone major, arguably revolutionary changes at times in the past. 

I would be happier if Trump had won the popular vote and lost the EC because he's a shitty, awful person doing shitty, awful things cheered on by bad people. That doesn't mean I'd suddenly be embracing the EC or the Senate. Not everyone is that unprincipled.

[Y2HH]

Perhaps the current electoral college system can be tweaked to better fit our modern makeup, and such a debate should be had to bring up new ideas. That being said, I'm in favor of having an electoral college over popular vote, as the latter sways extreme control into a handful of states, and I find this dangerous and short sighted. We are supposed to be a union of states represented equally, not a union of states represented by New York, California and Illinois, which is exactly what would happen -- and let's be honest, this is exactly why the Democrats want it that way. There are just too many potential dangers and pitfalls (including ones we haven't even thought of yet) in giving such control to too few areas of the country.

I think every vote should count the same *IN THE STATE THE VOTE IS CAST*, however, I do NOT feel that every vote should count the same outside those boundaries for the reasons stated above. What's good for the coastal elites is not good for the middle American, and visa versa. I personally don't want to see a couple of major metropolitan areas controlling the will of 45 other states most voters have likely never even visited.

While this is anecdotal, I find most voters to be either uninformed or misinformed, and tend to simply punch whatever name is sitting next to the D or R they're looking for on the ballot. So yes, this goes both ways. Unless we get a much more informed and non-party affiliated electorate in this country, I'll never be for the popular vote, because the population is largely stupid.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Y2HH

[pettie4sox]

Liberals could move to this low population states and turn them blue with ease.  There are way more liberals in the US than conservatives, however most are independents.

[GoSox05]

I like that people think you could just go to California and New York to campaign and that's it, you win.  As if Ohio, Georgia and Pennsylvania don't have massive populations.

Also,

California - 55 EC votes - 39,536,653 people

Wyoming - 3 EC votes - 579,315 people

California should have like 200 EC Votes.

Edited October 9, 2018 by GoSox05

[whitesoxfan99]

15 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Perhaps the current electoral college system can be tweaked to better fit our modern makeup, and such a debate should be had to bring up new ideas. That being said, I'm in favor of having an electoral college over popular vote, as the latter sways extreme control into a handful of states, and I find this dangerous and short sighted. We are supposed to be a union of states represented equally, not a union of states represented by New York, California and Illinois, which is exactly what would happen -- and let's be honest, this is exactly why the Democrats want it that way. There are just too many potential dangers and pitfalls (including ones we haven't even thought of yet) in giving such control to too few areas of the country.

 

That is exactly what is happening in our presidential elections anyways and people from smaller states are already ridiculously over represented in the Senate anyways.

[Y2HH]

2 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

That is exactly what is happening in our presidential elections anyways and people from smaller states are already ridiculously over represented in the Senate anyways.

That was done by design.

Like I said, I think it's a conversation to be had when it comes to the electoral college, but I wouldn't agree with strictly popular vote for the reasons cited.

[Y2HH]

11 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

I like that people think you could just go to California and New York to campaign and that's it, you win.  As if Ohio, Georgia and Pennsylvania don't have massive populations.

Also,

California - 55 EC votes - 39,536,653 people

Wyoming - 3 EC votes - 579,315 people

California should have like 200 EC Votes.

Awesome, your argument is you can't win by going to 2 states, but you can by going to ~5.

Out of 50.

Okay...

[GoSox05]

Just now, Y2HH said:

Awesome, your argument is you can't win by going to 2 states, but you can by going to ~5.

Out of 50.

Okay...

Just mentioned a couple other states with larger populations that's all. 

How much time on a presidential campaign as it is right now is spent campaigning in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North and South Dakota?  Did Trump or Clinton go to any of those states in the campaign?  Were they even mentioned? 

The systems we have in place now doesn't give them equal time and representation, it gives them over representation.

[Soxbadger]

7 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Awesome, your argument is you can't win by going to 2 states, but you can by going to ~5.

Out of 50.

Okay...

I think the best argument is that senate/house is skewed towards people in small states having a larger voice.

Therefore it would seem fair that people have equal say in one part of the govt.

Or they could increase house reps so that there is equality in how many people per rep.

 

[Y2HH]

8 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Just mentioned a couple other states with larger populations that's all. 

How much time on a presidential campaign as it is right now is spent campaigning in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North and South Dakota?  Did Trump or Clinton go to any of those states in the campaign?  Were they even mentioned? 

The systems we have in place now doesn't give them equal time and representation, it gives them over representation.

As I said, a discussion should be had that finds a way to alleviate this issue without giving total control over to a couple of major metropolitan areas. Once again, this devolves into another us vs them argument, where one side says, "the current system is perfect because it benefits us, versus the other side saying we should change it to the popular vote because that would benefit us!"

This is just more party line bullshit.

It's like neither can see the potential danger in just doing things that benefit their own party in the short term. They *just* did this same thing when they changed to a simple majority for appointing justices, and then it backfired when the other side used it. Somewhere down the road, I don't know when, but at some point -- something will happen -- an a populous rise will occur that shifts extreme to the other direction in a drastic and potentially dangerous way that uses the popular vote against the very people that advocate for it now.

Most of the people in this country are too misinformed or downright stupid to be electing presidents, let alone local officials. They search for the D or R and punch it, knowing NOTHING about the candidate.

No, I have very little faith in people.  

Edited October 9, 2018 by Y2HH

[Dick Allen]

15 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

That was done by design.

Like I said, I think it's a conversation to be had when it comes to the electoral college, but I wouldn't agree with strictly popular vote for the reasons cited.

But not to the extent it is today. 250 years ago, they didn't anticipate 40 million people in one state and 1.2 in another.