Tancredo: Elect POTUS by popular vote

Return to Board • Menu • Bottom

Page 3 of 4

Message

re: Tancredo: Elect POTUS by popular vote

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 3:13 pm to CollegeFBRules

Ok, here's my serious response.

quote:

You want a Midwest politician to pour money to bloated farming organizations and ignore seafood producing regions?

You realize there is a Congress, right?

quote:

You want an oil guy to flip the bird to alternative energy development?

This happens already.

quote:

You want to see business flee areas that aren't concentrated population centers because budgets cut funding to areas that don't provide that popular vote?

Yeah, actually.

BTW, where do you get the idea that a president-elect's regional biases magically disappear in the Electoral College system? Are you seriously that dumb?

This post was edited on 4/7 at 3:21 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 3:13 pm to moneybadger

quote:
This is kind of why I'd rather get rid of state governments altogether and just have one big mandingo federal government.

WTF? Are you trolling or something?

What you propose would do the exact opposite.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 3:15 pm to moneybadger

Ok, I'm out of this thread. You are either trolling or you are a complete fool. I try not to deal with either.

Enjoy your weekend.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by NHTIGER

on 4/7 at 3:16 pm to Cold Pizza

quote:
DOA. No way 3/4 of the States would go for it.

This has nothing to do with passage by 3/4th's of the states. It automatically takes effect when participating states represent a simple majority of the number of electoral votes. That means it doesn't matter what the remaining states do, the national popular vote winner automatically gets enough electors to win in the Electoral College vote.

Eight Democratic states, including California, Massachusetts and Illinois, as well as DC have already signed off on it.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 3:18 pm to Scruffy

quote:
Ok, I'm out of this thread. You are either trolling or you are a complete fool. I try not to deal with either.

I gave you a serious response, so frick off.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by ottothewise

on 4/7 at 3:22 pm to NHTIGER

quote:
Eight Democratic states, including California, Massachusetts and Illinois, as well as DC have already signed off on it.

DC is not a state. Therefore, they have no electors, no Senators, no voting members of Congress.

What kind of process is it, by which California "voted" on whether the people get to elect the president, BUT NO PEOPLE GOT TO VOTE ON THE TOPIC. It was not on any ballot. If the legislature decided on it, how is that democracy?

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by DA

on 4/7 at 3:28 pm to Teddy Ruxpin

quote:
So why would you advocate a system that concentrates power in a few states

Critics of the current system use the same argument. Just saying.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by NHTIGER

on 4/7 at 3:30 pm to ottothewise

quote:
uote:
Eight Democratic states, including California, Massachusetts and Illinois, as well as DC have already signed off on it.

DC is not a state. Therefore, they have no electors, no Senators, no voting members of Congress.

Damn, man, sometimes you just amaze me in your failures (no ofense, of course).

First, if you read the construction of my sentence - "Eight states ... AS WELL AS DC"...) shows I was not including DC as a "state"

But YOUR real failure here is that you wrote:

quote:
DC is not a state. Therefore, they have no electors,

The District of Columbia DOES have 3 electoral votes. Three. Got that? Okay then.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 3:31 pm to moneybadger

Oh really? Your initial response involved calling me a "fricktard," and you didn't even detect the meaning behind my post.

I'm enjoying your posts more and more. Carry on.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 3:36 pm to Scruffy

quote:
you didn't even detect the meaning behind my post.

I'm sorry, please help me out with the "meaning" of this drivel:

quote:
Hmmm, interesting.

So, I can successfully assume that you also support maintaining any and all positions the majority of society supports, correct?

I mean, the Caucasian population is disproportionately larger than the black population. You obviously support taking away any political voice that the black population has, right?

We could do this with any minority group.

Your stance is idiotic.

Other than the fact that it's a slippery slope fallacy.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 3:38 pm to moneybadger

You support the idea that the largest/most populated areas should decide the presidency. What is the difference between that and the belief that any majority group should have control?

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 3:43 pm to Scruffy

quote:
You support the idea that the largest/most populated areas should decide the presidency. What is the difference between that and the belief that any majority group should have control?

The difference is that geographic location is not an inherent genetic trait like ethnicity.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 3:46 pm to moneybadger

quote:
The difference is that geographic location is not an inherent genetic trait like ethnicity.

The concept of a majority group in control still applies despite that difference in the minority characteristics.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 3:54 pm to Scruffy

quote:
The concept of a majority group in control still applies despite that difference in the minority characteristics.

And?

This post was edited on 4/7 at 4:00 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 3:58 pm to moneybadger

So, do you support majority control or not?

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 4:02 pm to Scruffy

quote:
So, do you support majority control or not?

For elections of political officers, yes.

That doesn't believe I don't think there shouldn't be a Constitution that overrides legislation that removes the voting power of blacks.

You're a terrible debater.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Poodlebrain

on 4/7 at 4:04 pm to moneybadger

quote:
This is kind of why I'd rather get rid of state governments altogether and just have one big mandingo federal government.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your complete lack of understanding of American history. You might as well set up a monarchy with hereditary seats. The members of your government will do everything to perpetuate their continued "service".

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 4:08 pm to Poodlebrain

quote:

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your complete lack of understanding of American history. You might as well set up a monarchy with hereditary seats. The members of your government will do everything to perpetuate their continued "service".

FAIL #1: Not understanding sarcasm

FAIL #2: Insinuating that centralizing all governing power to a democratically elected federal government with three co-equal branches is even close to the same thing as a monarchy with hereditary seats.

NOT A FAIL: Naming yourself "poodlebrain." Perfect choice, man.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 4:13 pm to moneybadger

quote:
For elections of political officers, yes.

And in the process, you localize the power of election to a few distinct areas.

quote:
That doesn't believe I don't think there shouldn't be a Constitution that overrides legislation that removes the voting power of blacks.

And I didn't say that at all, but the two situations are not wholly different.

As you've stated, you support this idea that the larger populated areas should have all the say in elections, while the less populated areas are denied a voice.

Why should we have majority rule? Why not just give control to the most populated states?

What are the positives?

This post was edited on 4/7 at 4:16 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 4:17 pm to Scruffy

quote:
And in the process, you localize the power of election to a few distinct areas.

Not necessarily. Nothing obligates people in these areas to vote for a single candidate. Even in the most liberal cities, a large portion of presidential votes go to the Republican.

quote:

As you've stated, you support this idea that the larger populated areas should have all the say in elections, while the less populated areas are denied a voice.

Lol, wtf. I never said that.

Reply • Back to Top • Refresh

Return to Board	Jump to Page
Page 3 of 4