- 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 11:36 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:36 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Does anyone see the contradiction here from people arguing that Michigan cannot determine how its electoral votes are allocated, but in 2020, ran with the Trump message that electorates can vote for any candidate they feel, regardless of the election results (and vice versa)?
There is a serious problem with intellect, conviction, or both.
There is a serious problem with intellect, conviction, or both.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 11:38 am
0
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:41 am to Cuz413
quote:
You don't think that was on their minds when they had the likes of NY,PA, and VA and also New Hampshire and Delaware at that time?
In 1780, Delaware had 45385 people, estimated.
Virginia had 538004 (again, estimated)
Where I got the data. I did not include slaves
VA was 11.85x Delaware
Today California is 67.73x Wyoming
So no, I do not believe they could conceptualize that large of a disparity in population.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:41 am to Zachary
quote:
Saying to a state's electorate, "We don't care if you vote 100% for Candidate A; if California and New York vote for Candidate B, you are voting for Candidate B," does not sound like putting "power... close to the voters."
Do you think you have more of a voice with your state rep than either of the Senators from your state?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:42 am to KAGTASTIC
quote:
Is that like something a baby is given by his mother after he made a good boom-boom in his diapers? no clue what that means.
This site used to have user-voted awards. I believe I hold the record (without a close 2nd) for best poster on this board.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:43 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Currently, in a winner take all state, if you don't vote with the majority in your state, it's a meaningless vote.
Yeah there will be disenfranchisement with any system that elects representatives, where you remove the "political voice" of those voters.
The alternative is direct democracy.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 11:44 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:44 am to cajunangelle
It is mind blowing that the people of these states are allowing this. Based on the General Election polls posted on this board everyday, the Always Trumpers seem to support it too.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 11:47 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:45 am to Marcus Aurelius
quote:
It is mind blowing that the people of these states are allowing this.
Now THAT is a better argument/strategy.
How to communicate a message to voters in these states not to support representatives who support these measures.
If this is what the citizens of Michigan want, then
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:51 am to SlowFlowPro
Really ... it seems so simple. Who would not be PO'd about losing their vote? It is in black and white and nobody can argue that fact.
"Now THAT is a better argument/strategy.
How to communicate a message to voters in these states not to support representatives who support these measures.
If this is what the citizens of Michigan want, then
"
"Now THAT is a better argument/strategy.
How to communicate a message to voters in these states not to support representatives who support these measures.
If this is what the citizens of Michigan want, then
"
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I would prima facie agree with you on a straight line reading, but I have to believe the strict constitutionalists on the court would interpret the intent of the founding fathers and throw out these laws as unconstitutional if this were ever to be enacted. There is enough evidence to suggest this flies in the face of intent.
They're not changing the Electoral College.
They are determining how their electors are allocated:
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 11:57 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In 1780, Delaware had 45385 people, estimated. Virginia had 538004 (again, estimated) Where I got the data. I did not include slaves VA was 11.85x Delaware Today California is 67.73x Wyoming So no, I do not believe they could conceptualize that large of a disparity in population.
This reasoning doesn’t invalidate the logic behind the creation of the EC: that large population centers can impose their will and interests on the entire country based solely on numbers.
Statistical disparity between populations doesn’t matter because both Wyoming and California have gone through the same process of being admitted to the Union. Wyoming was admitted 40 years after California, so CA had a say in WY admittance with the understanding that population disparity exists.
By the way, NY was 127x as large as Nevada in 1890, so population disparity between states has been wider in the past.
Wikipedia 1890 Census
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This site used to have user-voted awards. I believe I hold the record (without a close 2nd) for best poster on this board.
Ohh congrats on the honor...but the "used to have" is key here as I was clear that I don't know if you had the respect and lost it at some point.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:03 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
, but I have to believe the strict constitutionalists on the court would interpret the intent
Bruh
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:05 pm to bluestem75
quote:
This reasoning doesn’t invalidate the logic behind the creation of the EC: that large population centers can impose their will and interests on the entire country based solely on numbers.
And it left it up to each state to make a judgment call on how the state felt about this issue.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:08 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
How about the Senate? How was their membership originally determined? It wasn't by a vote of the People.
quote:aka
How about the Senate?
quote:
the State house
The House of Representatives is known as the people's house.
The members of the Senate are there to represent the State. Which is why before the 17th amendment, the state legislators selected their Senate members. Now it's just a popularity contest like the House and POTUS.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:11 pm to Marcus Aurelius
quote:
It is mind blowing that the people of these states are allowing this
Why?
I'll bet you couldn't find 2% of the people in these states who could even articulate what any of this means.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:13 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Under that rationale, don't have a federal election day at all. Instead, just elect your state representatives. Zero need to have a federal election. Because that is, in essence, the result of this scheme.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:13 pm to Marcus Aurelius
quote:
Who would not be PO'd about losing their vote?
At least the Republicans in California would have their votes counted as opposed to now.
More people voted for Donald Trump in California than Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama combined. But those votes were all thrown out.
More people voted for Joe Biden in Texas than Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. And those votes were thrown out as well.
ETA: As a matter of fact, in the 2020 election, under our current system, 38,407,785 total votes for Trump were thrown out.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:22 pm to Zachary
quote:The people are free to vote out their state legislators if they don't like the results of the "scheme".
Under that rationale, don't have a federal election day at all. Instead, just elect your state representatives. Zero need to have a federal election. Because that is, in essence, the result of this scheme.
But in a deeply partisan state, what's the point of voting for the other party? Why should Republicans in California even bother voting under the current "scheme"? Trump got 6,000,000 votes in California. None of them mattered. Imagine if the Republicans in California realized their votes will now mean something. Don't you think more would turn out? I know a LOT of Democrats in Louisiana that don't bother voting for president because they know their votes don't count.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:26 pm to Cuz413
quote:
before the 17th amendment, the state legislators selected their Senate members. Now it's just a popularity contest like the House and POTUS.
Wrong, that's the point. The POTUS election is more like pre-17th Amendment Senators, it is NOT a popular election. The electors for president are appointed by the state.
The People don't elect the president, the States do.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:29 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
The voters of one state are, in essence, letting the voters in other states -- as well as the legislatures of other states -- make their decisions for them. For example, if New York wants to permit non-citizens to vote and to permit non-citizens to flood the state, Michigan voters are now having their electoral votes influenced by that decision.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News