Tancredo: Elect POTUS by popular vote

Return to Board • Menu • Bottom

Page 2 of 4

Message

re: Tancredo: Elect POTUS by popular vote

Posted by LSUgusto

on 4/7 at 12:18 pm to moneybadger

Having 5 states dictate to the other 45 sounds like a wonderful formula for the Union.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 12:20 pm to LSUgusto

quote:
Message Posted by LSUgusto Having 5 states dictate to the other 45 sounds like a wonderful formula for the Union.

Yea, I see that going over real well.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Spirit of Dunson

on 4/7 at 12:47 pm to LSUgusto

quote:
Having 5 states dictate to the other 45 sounds like a wonderful formula for the Union

being run by the 10%ers is better than the 1%ers.

I keed, I keed.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by ottothewise

on 4/7 at 12:54 pm to Teddy Ruxpin

quote:
Why are you advocating Social Darwinism then?

being for majority rule is not social darwinism.

social darwinism

quote:
"There are underlying, and largely irresistible, forces acting in societies which are like the natural forces that operate in animal and plant communities. One can therefore formulate social laws similar to natural ones. These social forces are of such a kind as to produce evolutionary progress through the natural conflicts between social groups. The best-adapted and most successful social groups survive these conflicts, raising the evolutionary level of society generally (the 'survival of the fittest')."[5]

wiki social darwinism

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Poodlebrain

on 4/7 at 1:03 pm to moneybadger

Then we may as well abandon the pretense we are a republic and just adopt a parliamentary system. We will be nothing more than a representative democracy which our founders despised as a form of government.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by skinny domino

on 4/7 at 1:47 pm to moneybadger

quote:
Tancredo: Elect POTUS by popular vote

LINK

In 2000, didn't Gore have the popular vote?

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by JLSIX

on 4/7 at 1:50 pm to moneybadger

quote:
F Dat. Three or so states would have all of the control over the process.

If they are that disproportionately larger than the other states, they deserve that control.

Good God.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by MFn GIMP

on 4/7 at 2:16 pm to moneybadger

quote:
If they are that disproportionately larger than the other states, they deserve that control.

You do realize that we aren't a democracy and that tyranny of the majority isn't the way this country works right?

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 2:22 pm to moneybadger

quote:
If they are that disproportionately larger than the other states, they deserve that control.

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.

This post was edited on 4/7 at 2:23 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by NHTIGER

on 4/7 at 2:36 pm to LSURussian

quote:
Did you not read your own link? Your thread's title is incorrect.

From your link:

quote:
HB1095 provides the legal procedures for awarding electors to candidates proportional to the popular vote totals and for joining a compact of other states willing to use the same procedures. The legislation would not eliminate the Electoral College.

Actually, his thread title IS correct. The article about Tancredo is not worded well at all.
This is a Democratic party movement that has been approved so far ONLY in states where the Dems easily win every Presidential Election year. Any Republican supporting it would be a damn fool.

The bill's sponsor, Walt Leger, is a Democrat.

The bill itself:

LINK

This post was edited on 4/7 at 2:43 pm

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 2:44 pm to Scruffy

quote:
If they are that disproportionately larger than the other states, they deserve that control.

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

Slippery slope riding fricktard.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 2:45 pm to NHTIGER

quote:
Any states rights fetishist supporting it would be a damn fool.

FIFY

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by CollegeFBRules

on 4/7 at 2:51 pm to moneybadger

quote:
If they are that disproportionately larger than the other states, they deserve that control.

And they get that under the Electoral College by having more electors. What they don't get is such a crushing, overwhelming majority that distorts the intent of a system was meant to keep a president honest in regards to regional differences.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by CollegeFBRules

on 4/7 at 2:52 pm to moneybadger

quote:
Slippery slope riding fricktard.

He's not the one embracing the slippery slope in this thread.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by CollegeFBRules

on 4/7 at 2:54 pm to ottothewise

quote:
being for majority rule is not social darwinism.

You don't live in a society based on the premise of succumbing to majority rule.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 2:55 pm to CollegeFBRules

quote:
And they get that under the Electoral College by having more electors. What they don't get is such a crushing, overwhelming majority that distorts the intent of a system was meant to keep a president honest in regards to regional differences.

Provide examples of these "important regional differences."

With globalization, whole nations are barely different from one another anymore.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 2:58 pm to CollegeFBRules

quote:

You don't live in a society based on the premise of succumbing to majority rule.

All this criticism of "majority rule" is so laughable. You do realize the electoral college is a de facto system of majority rule, right? For the most part, I have no problem with it for this reason. I just think it should be done away with to avoid the 1% chance the popular vote doesn't match up with the electoral map.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by CollegeFBRules

on 4/7 at 3:02 pm to moneybadger

quote:
Provide examples of these "important regional differences."

You want a Midwest politician to pour money to bloated farming organizations and ignore seafood producing regions? You want an oil guy to flip the bird to alternative energy development? 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? You're arguing for the end of federalism.

quote:
With globalization, whole nations are barely different from one another anymore.

Not only is that complete horseshite, it's also completely irrelevant to your thread.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by Scruffy

on 4/7 at 3:09 pm to moneybadger

quote:
Slippery slope riding fricktard.

I'm not the one supporting the "majority rules" position, fricktard.

You are.

Reply • Back to Top

Posted by moneybadger

on 4/7 at 3:10 pm to CollegeFBRules

quote:

You want a Midwest politician to pour money to bloated farming organizations and ignore seafood producing regions? You want an oil guy to flip the bird to alternative energy development? 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? You're arguing for the end of federalism.

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

Reply • Back to Top • Refresh

Return to Board	Jump to Page
Page 2 of 4