- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Electoral College
Posted on 3/19/19 at 11:46 am to Globetrotter747
Posted on 3/19/19 at 11:46 am to Globetrotter747
Keep the EC
Popular vote only would/already leads to voter fraud
Popular vote only would/already leads to voter fraud
0
Posted on 3/19/19 at 11:53 am to NikolaiJakov
quote:
Income tax. I don't want somebody voting because they bought a pack of Marlboros and claim they pay taxes. If you have a net zero or negative paid income taxes, no vote. That takes care of leeches and anyone who games the system.
Tax liability
Posted on 3/19/19 at 12:27 pm to tarzana
quote:
Popular vote...all the way.
Folks in Europe and much of the developed world think Americans are kooky for not determining a presidential winner by popular vote.
Oh shite... so that wasn't sarcasm??
Posted on 3/19/19 at 12:29 pm to tarzana
quote:America kicks Europe’s arse. We didn’t get that way by being “just like them”. We got this way by being different than them.
Folks in Europe and much of the developed world think Americans are kooky for not determining a presidential winner by popular vote.
“Other people do it” is never an argument of merit.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 12:29 pm to tarzana
quote:
Folks in Europe and much of the developed world think Americans are kooky for not determining a presidential winner by popular vote.
Oh! If they think we're kooky then we should definitely upend our unique system of government that guarantees more freedom and success than any other nation on earth.
Yeah. I can't think of a single problem the British people have with their government. Or the French. Or the Germans. Or the Swedes.
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 12:31 pm to tarzana
quote:
Folks in Europe and much of the developed world think Americans are kooky for not determining a presidential winner by popular vote.
What a dumbass statement. Westminster and the other parliamentary systems don't vote for their Prime Minister AT ALL, other than the citizens of that ministers home constituency. Germany is a federal republic like ours.
Which European countries are you aware of that actually directly vote for the head executive by pure national popular vote? I am honestly not aware of a single one beyond France, and even that system is a little different because of the two rounds.
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 12:33 pm to AggieHank86
quote:If you need help understanding why good policies necessary to the success of the nation are “necessary” I’m not sure anyone here can help you.
Again, a strong argument as to why the EC continues to be "good policy," with which I agree.
I am still waiting for someone to explain why it is "necessary."
We can explain it you (and many have multiple times) but no one can understand it for you.
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 12:46 pm to tarzana
quote:
Folks in Europe and much of the developed world think Americans are kooky for not determining a presidential winner by popular vote.
We want Europe to think we are kooky. I don’t know why you wet noodles are obsessed with what they think of us, they are mostly jealous.
The Electoral College isn’t going away and any candidate that pushes it is going to eliminate themselves.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 1:00 pm to Globetrotter747
Yes, the EC is necessary- and 16 year olds are too young to vote.
I am also against voting more than once in the same election, granting voting rights for illegals, and counting the deceased vote.
And if I can think of any other dirty tricks the left would like to use in order to keep themselves in power forever, I'll be against those, too.
I may as well throw in that I don't believe someone who pays no taxes should be allowed to vote in favor of raising them. Being generous with other peoples' money is as good as theft.
I am also against voting more than once in the same election, granting voting rights for illegals, and counting the deceased vote.
And if I can think of any other dirty tricks the left would like to use in order to keep themselves in power forever, I'll be against those, too.
I may as well throw in that I don't believe someone who pays no taxes should be allowed to vote in favor of raising them. Being generous with other peoples' money is as good as theft.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 1:41 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:No.quote:Uh, isn't that EXACTLY how it's done?
So would apportioning electoral votes based on congressional districts/percentage of population without disbanding the electoral college.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 1:41 pm to Globetrotter747
This thread is full of a bunch of regurgitated talking points that I'm not convinced are factual.
Let me just say, I really don't care if we have an Electoral college OR a popular vote. Either ways is fine with me, but the Constitution says Electoral College so that's what we got.
First of all, we are only talking about the Presidency, not holding a national popular vote for Congress. The Senate will always have 2 votes per state, so we are not talking about the Popular vote "deciding everything" for the rest of the nation. Get Congress to take back the power it has delegated to the Presidency, and this isn't even that big of a deal.
Second, people say this would allow just a handful of states to choose the President for everyone. This already happens. The only states that really matter are the "swing" states that are not solidly red or blue. Trump won by campaigning primarily in the iron belt and Florida. The other states were pretty much decided.
Third, people seem to have this idea that because New York, California and Texas are so huge that Presidential candidates would just pander to those states to try to win. But those states are diverse. What could a candidate promise that would heavily swing the vote in those states? Are those states so homogeneous that a candidate could win a landslide in all three states and just ignore all the other states?
Well, maybe, but I'm not so sure...we've never tried it.
The answer to all of this is a drum I have been beating for weeks: Dramatically increase the number of Representatives in Congress. We have been stuck at 438 for over 100 years. It is time to bump that up to something around 1,000. Heck, we could ratify the original 12th Amendment and provide 1 representative for every 30-50,000 people, which would give us something between 6,000-11,000 representatives.
A larger Congress would give all of us a more meaningful voice in the House, and it really handicap the lobbyists. It would necessitate shrewd deal making in DC, put more average Joes in the House than career politicians, and even give third parties a chance to gain some real traction.
This increase in Representatives would also automatically increase the number of total Electors, and the more populous states would receive proportionally more Electors. This would reduce the chances of a difference in popular vote and the Electoral College, but it would not eliminate the possibility.
Let me just say, I really don't care if we have an Electoral college OR a popular vote. Either ways is fine with me, but the Constitution says Electoral College so that's what we got.
First of all, we are only talking about the Presidency, not holding a national popular vote for Congress. The Senate will always have 2 votes per state, so we are not talking about the Popular vote "deciding everything" for the rest of the nation. Get Congress to take back the power it has delegated to the Presidency, and this isn't even that big of a deal.
Second, people say this would allow just a handful of states to choose the President for everyone. This already happens. The only states that really matter are the "swing" states that are not solidly red or blue. Trump won by campaigning primarily in the iron belt and Florida. The other states were pretty much decided.
Third, people seem to have this idea that because New York, California and Texas are so huge that Presidential candidates would just pander to those states to try to win. But those states are diverse. What could a candidate promise that would heavily swing the vote in those states? Are those states so homogeneous that a candidate could win a landslide in all three states and just ignore all the other states?
Well, maybe, but I'm not so sure...we've never tried it.
The answer to all of this is a drum I have been beating for weeks: Dramatically increase the number of Representatives in Congress. We have been stuck at 438 for over 100 years. It is time to bump that up to something around 1,000. Heck, we could ratify the original 12th Amendment and provide 1 representative for every 30-50,000 people, which would give us something between 6,000-11,000 representatives.
A larger Congress would give all of us a more meaningful voice in the House, and it really handicap the lobbyists. It would necessitate shrewd deal making in DC, put more average Joes in the House than career politicians, and even give third parties a chance to gain some real traction.
This increase in Representatives would also automatically increase the number of total Electors, and the more populous states would receive proportionally more Electors. This would reduce the chances of a difference in popular vote and the Electoral College, but it would not eliminate the possibility.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 1:47 pm to Globetrotter747
How stupid are you?
Do you not even understand the absolute most fundamental concept of our union?
The union would NEVER have existed if big states could control the whole country.
Oh and frick off. EC will be here forever and the day you liberal clowns remove it, is the day the 2nd Civil War starts.
Do you not even understand the absolute most fundamental concept of our union?
The union would NEVER have existed if big states could control the whole country.
Oh and frick off. EC will be here forever and the day you liberal clowns remove it, is the day the 2nd Civil War starts.
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 1:48 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:No.quote:They have, but you're being willfully obtuse and refuse to listen.
I am still waiting for someone to explain why it is "necessary."
They have given a variety of reasons that the EC is good policy. I AGREE!
The fact that something is "good policy" does NOT mean that it is "necessary."
quote:It is my opinion that the US would still operate if the POTUS were elected by the popular vote. Albeit, not as well, but it would still operate. Thus, it is not "necessary," in my view.
necessary: absolutely needed : REQUIRED // Food is necessary for life.
And NO ONE has even attempted to establish that the US would cease to function under a popular vote.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 1:51 pm to Globetrotter747
Yes. I don't want to see another civil war.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 1:51 pm to Dday63
quote:
The answer to all of this is a drum I have been beating for weeks: Dramatically increase the number of Representatives in Congress. We have been stuck at 438 for over 100 years. It is time to bump that up to something around 1,000.
Stop it. Just stop it right now. 
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 1:57 pm to Dday63
One thing the EC does is minimize the effect of voter fraud. California, for example, is a huge state and I absolutely believe a huge number of illegal aliens are being allowed to vote. In a really big state like California or Texas, you can have a big batch of ineligible voters turn out and it won't matter because California gets a certain amount of electoral votes like all states.
The EC is damn near perfect for many reasons. This is but one example of many.
The EC is damn near perfect for many reasons. This is but one example of many.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 1:58 pm to Globetrotter747
The only reason this is being brought up is because it screwed Liberals in 2016. If this was the other way around leftists would be having a field day saying how against the Constitution it is.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 2:00 pm to tarzana
quote:From their perspective, that makes a bit of sense. Almost every country in Europe is a Unitary State or (at best) displays a bit of decentralization within a Unitary State. There is no true "federal republic" in Europe, to my knowledge. (Germany calls itself a federal state, but it is not.
Folks in Europe and much of the developed world think Americans are kooky for not determining a presidential winner by popular vote.
The US has been moving in the same direction for about 150 years, which is a bad thing (in my view).
Posted on 3/19/19 at 2:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Exactly. We should be perfectly content with terrible policies. Good grief. This is delving ont the absurd at this point. If you don’t think good governance is necessary you’re literally Dunning-Kruegering yourself out of any sensible conversation.
The fact that something is "good policy" does NOT mean that it is "necessary."
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 2:03 pm to oleheat
quote:So increase he number of senators to like.... 400? Ok.
The answer to all of this is a drum I have been beating for weeks: Dramatically increase the number of Representatives in Congress. We have been stuck at 438 for over 100 years. It is time to bump that up to something around 1,000.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News