Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: WLJ on March 18, 2019, 03:26:26 PM
-
I'm not sure how they can call this constitutional since it basically can flip whoever Coloradans actually voted for.
It’s called the Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s simple. A state’s electoral college votes are allocated to whoever wins the national popular vote. Period. It’s constitutional and some prominent conservatives are pushing or it.
ICYMI: Colorado’s Governor Signs Bill That Alters Its Electoral College Participation
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/03/18/icymi-colorados-governor-signs-bill-that-alters-its-electoral-college-participation-n2543247
-
The compact doesn't have any legal force until states making up 270 votes enact it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
This would make the presidential electrion a direct vote election nation wide.
-
The compact doesn't have any legal force until states making up 270 votes enact it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
I missed that part
So that actually just makes it a smoke and mirrors bill to appease the libs until then.
-
I still wouldn't call it smoke and mirrors. Even if it were 400 instead of 270, a state(s) is saying the votes of its populace don't matter. What they want to do is exactly what they are falsely stating is being done by the electoral college.
-
While I think we could do better than the current electoral college system, I am not a fan of this 'workaround'.
If it's going to be changed it should be done properly with a Constitutional amendment.
-
While I think we could do better than the current electoral college system, I am not a fan of this 'workaround'.
If it's going to be changed it should be done properly with a Constitutional amendment.
But to do that, the locusts leftists would have to get a SUPER majority to change the rules. And that's not fair! It should only take a majority to change the rules by which we vote on rules!
Because any voting that takes something other than just a majority is not fair. It should always be a majority. Unless the locusts leftists win some other way, then that is the way it has to be.
-
But to do that, the locusts leftists would have to get a SUPER majority to change the rules. And that's not fair! It should only take a majority to change the rules by which we vote on rules!
Because any voting that takes something other than just a majority is not fair. It should always be a majority. Unless the locusts leftists win some other way, then that is the way it has to be.
Then I guess the Left would not be OK with laws being changed or set aside by a handful of Supreme Court justices, right?
-
I can't wait to hear the whining and crying when the Supreme Court overturns this.
-
[popcorn]
When is the national popular vote Democratic presidential primary?
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) March 20, 2019
THIS is a great idea.
One national Democratic primary.
No delegates. Pure democracy.
Put your money where your mouth is Dems. Do it now.
Every vote counts. https://t.co/0bTz4SYjbE
— Joseph Spiegel (@joedocbc) March 20, 2019
BOOM: Here’s how 2020 Dems can prove they’re SUPER SERIOUS about the ‘national popular vote’ idea
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/03/20/boom-heres-how-2020-dems-can-prove-theyre-super-serious-about-the-national-popular-vote-idea/
-
[popcorn]
BOOM: Here’s how 2020 Dems can prove they’re SUPER SERIOUS about the ‘national popular vote’ idea
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/03/20/boom-heres-how-2020-dems-can-prove-theyre-super-serious-about-the-national-popular-vote-idea/
[popcorn] indeed! =)
-
[popcorn]
BOOM: Here’s how 2020 Dems can prove they’re SUPER SERIOUS about the ‘national popular vote’ idea
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/03/20/boom-heres-how-2020-dems-can-prove-theyre-super-serious-about-the-national-popular-vote-idea/
That's unfair! When the Democrats use delegates it's democratic!
-
That's unfair! When the Democrats use delegates it's democratic!
And their super-delegates are super-democratic.
-
I can't wait to hear the whining and crying when the Supreme Court overturns this.
Or when Trump wins the popular vote in 2020... and he wins the EC because of Colorado's votes >:D
-
Or when Trump wins the popular vote in 2020... and he wins the EC because of Colorado's votes >:D
This. The Law of Unintended Consequences always rears its ugly head to bite you in the 4th point of contact.
The wailing and nashing of teeth from the left will be delicious, those will be some of finest vintage leftist tears ever....
-
(https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/D2HqG4MXgAA2-K9.jpg)
-
https://fee.org/articles/why-national-popular-vote-would-be-a-disaster-for-america-and-npv-supporters/
Something else to consider. NPV sends those electoral votes to the "winner" of the popular vote. That doesn't mean whoever gets a majority. A plurality is plenty. Which means that it's entirely possible to win with as little as 20% of the vote. Since lots of Hollyweird types, billionaires, and various cranks will be running, along with more or less serious candidates from the major parties, the two major parties will quickly become essentially irrelevant, at least for POTUS.
-
the two major parties will quickly become essentially irrelevant
That part doesn't sound so bad... =)
I have to admit, I was unaware of a lot of the party nomination history.
Any of you guys in favor of going back to the good old days?
For most of American history, ordinary citizens not only did not participate in the nomination process, they did not expect to participate. Of course, the machinations of the various political parties in choosing their nominees was the stuff of great drama. Ordinary citizens read the newspaper accounts from the convention cities with great interest. Later on, they huddled around the radio to hear live speeches coming from the convention. And still later, they watched the conventions unfold on television. But the only way ordinary citizens could have a say in who they nominated was to participate in party politics at the precinct, county, or state level and hope to eventually get to vote for the convention delegates. For almost two centuries, from 1796 to 1968, the candidates who ran for president were chosen in a process that was almost entirely closed to the public. Most Americans today would consider these processes unfair and undemocratic.