- 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: Michigan Democrats approve National Popular Vote scheme
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:35 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:35 am to cajunangelle
There is a natural problem with popular voting in this day and age - the west and east coasts have most of the country’s population and they are 3 hours apart. Voting could become dynamic with “comebacks” on the west coast that react to closed polls on the east coast
Of course, this problem could be exploited…
Of course, this problem could be exploited…
1
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:39 am to partyboy1930
quote:
The question is - does it have a chance to pass ?
It's already passed in a bunch of states but most have a trigger that it only comes into effect if they get a large enough share of the vote
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:39 am to cajunangelle
Blatantly unconstitutional
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:40 am to cajunangelle
This would be unconstitutional - no?…
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:41 am to udtiger
quote:
Blatantly unconstitutional
quote:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:42 am to cajunangelle
Citizens of Michigan need to wake up before they lose control of their state government.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:43 am to OceanMan
quote:
There is a natural problem with popular voting in this day and age - the west and east coasts have most of the country’s population
This sets up a tyranny of the majority. The city population will attempt to lord over a population it has little cultural connection with. This situation has never ended well.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:45 am to TrueTiger
quote:
This sets up a tyranny of the majority. The city population will attempt to lord over a population it has little cultural connection with. This situation has never ended well.
Regardless of the EC system, this is happening organically with the population. That's what happens as your society develops.
The list of reasons to live in rural areas is small and getting smaller every day.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it only comes into effect if they get a large enough share of the vote
This kind of language should be unconstitutional
It cannot be allowed to change something ONLY if the change furthers our POLITICAL agenda.
Any such legislation should render their subsequent results voided.
Cannot allow 'heads we win - tails you lose' in any kind of governing body.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 7:51 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The list of reasons to live in rural areas is small and getting smaller every day.
Same for the list of reasons to live in cities.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:52 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
This kind of language should be unconstitutional
Recent Supreme Court rulings have stripped their power in reviewing these state-level decisions.
State have a LOT of power in this area. State's rights, and all.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 7:54 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Same for the list of reasons to live in cities.
Jobs outside of retail on a highway and a population of potential mates who don't have 2 kids by 20 are a pretty strong draw.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
State's rights
including abortion??
and you'd have no problem with strict ID requirements for voting?? -
How about requiring an IQ type threshold for eligibility to register??
state's rights = good.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:03 am to udtiger
quote:
Blatantly unconstitutional
IDK, likely is constitutional.
However, in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, popular vote was struck down by the states 8-2 with 2 other states abstaining or not present. So clearly the founders did not like the idea of popular vote.
Case in point, when neither candidate secures enough electoral votes, the vote goes to the House where each STATE only gets 1 vote, putting the decision back in the hands of the state and not the gen population at large.
ETA, I did not see they listed this a compact between States, that is a direct violation.
If Michigan was solo in this endeavor, I still see where it could be Constitutional.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 9:27 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:04 am to SlowFlowPro
So the Federal voting laws would not have to be amended and ratified?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:05 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
including abortion??
and you'd have no problem with strict ID requirements for voting?? -
How about requiring an IQ type threshold for eligibility to register??
state's rights = good.
Well glad to see you're keeping this on topic and not rambling
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:06 am to cajunangelle
quote:
So the Federal voting laws would not have to be amended and ratified?
Different types of laws.
States have a lot of leeway in determining how their elections are handled, even federal elections.
The Constitution clearly states that each State can determine how to allocate the EC votes however it desires. The only way federal laws would come into play is if they argued that EC distribution determination was designed to disenfranchise black people, basically.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Jobs outside of retail on a highway and a population of potential mates who don't have 2 kids by 20 are a pretty strong draw.
We're going to need a lot more Daniel Penneys.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:09 am to GumboPot
quote:
Who are the other 36 states that agree with MI on this issue?
They aren't trying to make a constitutional amendment.
This is their way of by passing it. So real application is this:
- Trump wins Michigan by 100K. He would get all of the delegates as it stands.
- However, because by won got the most votes nationally, they award those votes to Biden... Even though the people did not vote that way
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:10 am to RCDfan1950
So states can create laws that disenfranchise their voters?
That is Constitutionally OK?…
That is Constitutionally OK?…
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News