|
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 5744 | Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Looking at the history of how states determined electoral votes, some states early on used direct election of eligible voters-21 year old or older, White male landowners. In other states the state legislature directly chose electors via majority. A popular vote to chose electors was not adopted by all states until 1868, with South Carolina being the last holdout until its readmission after The Civil War. Indeed, to this day, states don't have to hold a popular election for electors. The Constitution leaves up to each state legislature to determine how the states electors are chosen.
If your pinhead acquaintance really cared, he'd try like Hell to make it easier for those impacted by the hurricanes to vote, instead of having the legislature appoint electoral votes via fiat. Just goes to show how un-democratic Republicans actually are.
I am not aware of any state that wants to appoint Democrat electors even if that state votes for a Republican candidate. I am aware of states who wish to appoint their state's electors according who wins the majority of votes nationally, regardless of party.
Can you point out which Democrats want to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote, even if the Republcain candidate wins the majority of the state's votes? Can you [point out which Democrats want states to refuse to appoint Republican electors, as you imply?
Or is this a case of you, once again, being intentionally ill-informed?
No. It’s a case of you being unable to understand a simple point. It seems to happen frequently. If a Republican wins a majority of the votes in State X, there are Democrats who do not want State X electors to be Republican, if a Democrat wins the national popular vote. Ask one of your grandchildren to explain that to you if you can’t understand. I’ll let you use your Google finger to find the list of Democrats who would be in favor of such.
Wrong again! I would have had so much fun with you, if you ever practiced at my hospital! Those same Democrats would have no problem appointing Republican electors if the Republican candidate won the national. You neglect to point that out, kimosabe. You imply Democrats would seek to appoint Democrat EVs regardless of national vote totals. I dare you to say that is not true. I dare you to state that the Voter Compact calls for appointing EVs according to the national vote, and that Democrats would willingly appoint GOP EVs if the GOP candidate wins the national vote. Go ahead. I dare you. I also dare you to point out by name which Democrats would ONLY appoint Democrat EVs. Put up or shut up. If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Democrat(by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Republican win a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Republican wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Democrat (by virtue of the national vote total). Remember, the Constitution allows state legislatures the power to determine how electors are appointed.
I live in the real world. The Democrats are trying to do this for the SOLE PURPOSE of overturning a Republican win in the Electoral College (as done today) when the Democrat candidate wins the popular vote. In the real world, there is NO CHANCE it works the other way. You know that. I know that. But you will come up with some confabulation. Go for it. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE DEMOCRATS WANTING THE ‘voter compact’ is to elect a Democrat candidate who would NOT win the electoral college as presently done. SOLE PURPOSE. |
|
| terapined Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 76
Posts: 12501 | Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Looking at the history of how states determined electoral votes, some states early on used direct election of eligible voters-21 year old or older, White male landowners. In other states the state legislature directly chose electors via majority. A popular vote to chose electors was not adopted by all states until 1868, with South Carolina being the last holdout until its readmission after The Civil War. Indeed, to this day, states don't have to hold a popular election for electors. The Constitution leaves up to each state legislature to determine how the states electors are chosen.
If your pinhead acquaintance really cared, he'd try like Hell to make it easier for those impacted by the hurricanes to vote, instead of having the legislature appoint electoral votes via fiat. Just goes to show how un-democratic Republicans actually are.
I am not aware of any state that wants to appoint Democrat electors even if that state votes for a Republican candidate. I am aware of states who wish to appoint their state's electors according who wins the majority of votes nationally, regardless of party.
Can you point out which Democrats want to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote, even if the Republcain candidate wins the majority of the state's votes? Can you [point out which Democrats want states to refuse to appoint Republican electors, as you imply?
Or is this a case of you, once again, being intentionally ill-informed?
No. It’s a case of you being unable to understand a simple point. It seems to happen frequently. If a Republican wins a majority of the votes in State X, there are Democrats who do not want State X electors to be Republican, if a Democrat wins the national popular vote. Ask one of your grandchildren to explain that to you if you can’t understand. I’ll let you use your Google finger to find the list of Democrats who would be in favor of such.
Wrong again! I would have had so much fun with you, if you ever practiced at my hospital! Those same Democrats would have no problem appointing Republican electors if the Republican candidate won the national. You neglect to point that out, kimosabe. You imply Democrats would seek to appoint Democrat EVs regardless of national vote totals. I dare you to say that is not true. I dare you to state that the Voter Compact calls for appointing EVs according to the national vote, and that Democrats would willingly appoint GOP EVs if the GOP candidate wins the national vote. Go ahead. I dare you. I also dare you to point out by name which Democrats would ONLY appoint Democrat EVs. Put up or shut up. If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Democrat(by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Republican win a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Republican wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Democrat (by virtue of the national vote total). Remember, the Constitution allows state legislatures the power to determine how electors are appointed.
I live in the real world. The Democrats are trying to do this for the SOLE PURPOSE of overturning a Republican win in the Electoral College (as done today) when the Democrat candidate wins the popular vote. In the real world, there is NO CHANCE it works the other way. You know that. I know that. But you will come up with some confabulation. Go for it. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE DEMOCRATS WANTING THE ‘voter compact’ is to elect a Democrat candidate who would NOT win the electoral college as presently done. SOLE PURPOSE.
Bottom line Dems OK with the peaceful transfer of power Republicans against the peaceful transfer of power and support Jan 6 rioters instead Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World" |
|
| GenoDRPh Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2831 | Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Looking at the history of how states determined electoral votes, some states early on used direct election of eligible voters-21 year old or older, White male landowners. In other states the state legislature directly chose electors via majority. A popular vote to chose electors was not adopted by all states until 1868, with South Carolina being the last holdout until its readmission after The Civil War. Indeed, to this day, states don't have to hold a popular election for electors. The Constitution leaves up to each state legislature to determine how the states electors are chosen.
If your pinhead acquaintance really cared, he'd try like Hell to make it easier for those impacted by the hurricanes to vote, instead of having the legislature appoint electoral votes via fiat. Just goes to show how un-democratic Republicans actually are.
I am not aware of any state that wants to appoint Democrat electors even if that state votes for a Republican candidate. I am aware of states who wish to appoint their state's electors according who wins the majority of votes nationally, regardless of party.
Can you point out which Democrats want to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote, even if the Republcain candidate wins the majority of the state's votes? Can you [point out which Democrats want states to refuse to appoint Republican electors, as you imply?
Or is this a case of you, once again, being intentionally ill-informed?
No. It’s a case of you being unable to understand a simple point. It seems to happen frequently. If a Republican wins a majority of the votes in State X, there are Democrats who do not want State X electors to be Republican, if a Democrat wins the national popular vote. Ask one of your grandchildren to explain that to you if you can’t understand. I’ll let you use your Google finger to find the list of Democrats who would be in favor of such.
Wrong again! I would have had so much fun with you, if you ever practiced at my hospital! Those same Democrats would have no problem appointing Republican electors if the Republican candidate won the national. You neglect to point that out, kimosabe. You imply Democrats would seek to appoint Democrat EVs regardless of national vote totals. I dare you to say that is not true. I dare you to state that the Voter Compact calls for appointing EVs according to the national vote, and that Democrats would willingly appoint GOP EVs if the GOP candidate wins the national vote. Go ahead. I dare you. I also dare you to point out by name which Democrats would ONLY appoint Democrat EVs. Put up or shut up. If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Democrat(by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Republican win a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Republican wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Democrat (by virtue of the national vote total). Remember, the Constitution allows state legislatures the power to determine how electors are appointed.
I live in the real world. The Democrats are trying to do this for the SOLE PURPOSE of overturning a Republican win in the Electoral College (as done today) when the Democrat candidate wins the popular vote. In the real world, there is NO CHANCE it works the other way. You know that. I know that. But you will come up with some confabulation. Go for it. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE DEMOCRATS WANTING THE ‘voter compact’ is to elect a Democrat candidate who would NOT win the electoral college as presently done. SOLE PURPOSE.
I am completely okay with the person with the most votes earned combined from the 50 states, DC and overseas ballots being President. However we get there under the Constitution is fine by me. I am not okay, anymore to the extent I ever was, with the Electoral Vote system. There are enough safeguards-direct election of US Senators, direct election of US Representatives, the Federal courts as well as the Federal-State system of government of the Republic, to ensure the rights of the minority parties are protected, with equal rights for all. |
|
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195 | Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Looking at the history of how states determined electoral votes, some states early on used direct election of eligible voters-21 year old or older, White male landowners. In other states the state legislature directly chose electors via majority. A popular vote to chose electors was not adopted by all states until 1868, with South Carolina being the last holdout until its readmission after The Civil War. Indeed, to this day, states don't have to hold a popular election for electors. The Constitution leaves up to each state legislature to determine how the states electors are chosen.
If your pinhead acquaintance really cared, he'd try like Hell to make it easier for those impacted by the hurricanes to vote, instead of having the legislature appoint electoral votes via fiat. Just goes to show how un-democratic Republicans actually are.
I am not aware of any state that wants to appoint Democrat electors even if that state votes for a Republican candidate. I am aware of states who wish to appoint their state's electors according who wins the majority of votes nationally, regardless of party.
Can you point out which Democrats want to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote, even if the Republcain candidate wins the majority of the state's votes? Can you [point out which Democrats want states to refuse to appoint Republican electors, as you imply?
Or is this a case of you, once again, being intentionally ill-informed?
No. It’s a case of you being unable to understand a simple point. It seems to happen frequently. If a Republican wins a majority of the votes in State X, there are Democrats who do not want State X electors to be Republican, if a Democrat wins the national popular vote. Ask one of your grandchildren to explain that to you if you can’t understand. I’ll let you use your Google finger to find the list of Democrats who would be in favor of such.
Wrong again! I would have had so much fun with you, if you ever practiced at my hospital! Those same Democrats would have no problem appointing Republican electors if the Republican candidate won the national. You neglect to point that out, kimosabe. You imply Democrats would seek to appoint Democrat EVs regardless of national vote totals. I dare you to say that is not true. I dare you to state that the Voter Compact calls for appointing EVs according to the national vote, and that Democrats would willingly appoint GOP EVs if the GOP candidate wins the national vote. Go ahead. I dare you. I also dare you to point out by name which Democrats would ONLY appoint Democrat EVs. Put up or shut up. If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Democrat(by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Republican win a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Republican wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Democrat (by virtue of the national vote total). Remember, the Constitution allows state legislatures the power to determine how electors are appointed.
I live in the real world. The Democrats are trying to do this for the SOLE PURPOSE of overturning a Republican win in the Electoral College (as done today) when the Democrat candidate wins the popular vote. In the real world, there is NO CHANCE it works the other way. You know that. I know that. But you will come up with some confabulation. Go for it. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE DEMOCRATS WANTING THE ‘voter compact’ is to elect a Democrat candidate who would NOT win the electoral college as presently done. SOLE PURPOSE.
I am completely okay with the person with the most votes earned combined from the 50 states, DC and overseas ballots being President. However we get there under the Constitution is fine by me. I am not okay, anymore to the extent I ever was, with the Electoral Vote system. There are enough safeguards-direct election of US Senators, direct election of US Representatives, the Federal courts as well as the Federal-State system of government of the Republic, to ensure the rights of the minority parties are protected, with equal rights for all.
Direct election of Senators has been a disaster. Instead of watching out for the states as was the plan the Senate has become a handout machine. Meanwhile the Electoral College is working as intended. Preventing a few big population areas being able to just decide who is POTUS and making candidates pay attention to everyone. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength |
|
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 5744 | Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Looking at the history of how states determined electoral votes, some states early on used direct election of eligible voters-21 year old or older, White male landowners. In other states the state legislature directly chose electors via majority. A popular vote to chose electors was not adopted by all states until 1868, with South Carolina being the last holdout until its readmission after The Civil War. Indeed, to this day, states don't have to hold a popular election for electors. The Constitution leaves up to each state legislature to determine how the states electors are chosen.
If your pinhead acquaintance really cared, he'd try like Hell to make it easier for those impacted by the hurricanes to vote, instead of having the legislature appoint electoral votes via fiat. Just goes to show how un-democratic Republicans actually are.
I am not aware of any state that wants to appoint Democrat electors even if that state votes for a Republican candidate. I am aware of states who wish to appoint their state's electors according who wins the majority of votes nationally, regardless of party.
Can you point out which Democrats want to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote, even if the Republcain candidate wins the majority of the state's votes? Can you [point out which Democrats want states to refuse to appoint Republican electors, as you imply?
Or is this a case of you, once again, being intentionally ill-informed?
No. It’s a case of you being unable to understand a simple point. It seems to happen frequently. If a Republican wins a majority of the votes in State X, there are Democrats who do not want State X electors to be Republican, if a Democrat wins the national popular vote. Ask one of your grandchildren to explain that to you if you can’t understand. I’ll let you use your Google finger to find the list of Democrats who would be in favor of such.
Wrong again! I would have had so much fun with you, if you ever practiced at my hospital! Those same Democrats would have no problem appointing Republican electors if the Republican candidate won the national. You neglect to point that out, kimosabe. You imply Democrats would seek to appoint Democrat EVs regardless of national vote totals. I dare you to say that is not true. I dare you to state that the Voter Compact calls for appointing EVs according to the national vote, and that Democrats would willingly appoint GOP EVs if the GOP candidate wins the national vote. Go ahead. I dare you. I also dare you to point out by name which Democrats would ONLY appoint Democrat EVs. Put up or shut up. If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Democrat(by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Republican win a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Republican wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total). If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Democrat (by virtue of the national vote total). Remember, the Constitution allows state legislatures the power to determine how electors are appointed.
I live in the real world. The Democrats are trying to do this for the SOLE PURPOSE of overturning a Republican win in the Electoral College (as done today) when the Democrat candidate wins the popular vote. In the real world, there is NO CHANCE it works the other way. You know that. I know that. But you will come up with some confabulation. Go for it. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE DEMOCRATS WANTING THE ‘voter compact’ is to elect a Democrat candidate who would NOT win the electoral college as presently done. SOLE PURPOSE.
I am completely okay with the person with the most votes earned combined from the 50 states, DC and overseas ballots being President. However we get there under the Constitution is fine by me. I am not okay, anymore to the extent I ever was, with the Electoral Vote system. There are enough safeguards-direct election of US Senators, direct election of US Representatives, the Federal courts as well as the Federal-State system of government of the Republic, to ensure the rights of the minority parties are protected, with equal rights for all.
Are you ok with North Carolina having its legislature just award its electors to Trump regardless of the vote Talley? Apparently it’s ok by the constitution. Is there a single Democrat that would be in favor of the essential elimination of the electoral college if the Republicans routinely won the popular vote? No. Of course the electoral college is stupid. Win a state by 10 votes and get its 40 Electors. Lose a state by 1,000,000 votes and have your opponent get its 30 Electors. |
|
| GenoDRPh Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2831 | I am completely okay with the person with the most votes earned combined being President. However we get there under the Constitution is fine by me. I am not okay, anymore to the extent I ever was, with the Electoral Vote system. There are enough safeguards-direct election of US Senators, direct election of US Representatives, the Federal courts as well as the Federal-State system of government of the Republic, to ensure the rights of the minority parties are protected, with equal rights for all. Quote: Are you ok with North Carolina having its legislature just award its electors to Trump regardless of the vote Talley? Apparently it’s ok by the constitution.
Asked and answered, kimosabe. Quote: Is there a single Democrat that would be in favor of the essential elimination of the electoral college if the Republicans routinely won the popular vote? No.
Irrelevent. Quote: Of course the electoral college is stupid. Win a state by 10 votes and get its 40 Electors. Lose a state by 1,000,000 votes and have your opponent get its 30 Electors.
Good. Then we are both in agreement to either award EVs by national vote total, or get rid of the EC entirely and just go to popular vote. |
|
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 5744 | Quote: GenoDRPh
Good. Then we are both in agreement to either award EVs by national vote total, or get rid of the EC entirely and just go to popular vote.
Not exactly. I can agree to change the system to eliminate the Electoral College, and just select the President via the national popular vote, IF the country votes to do so using the procedures already in place to allow such. If the Electoral College still exists, and the country does not eliminate it, I am against any single state not using the vote of ITS citizens to allocate ITS electoral votes. |
|
| terapined Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 76
Posts: 12501 | Quote: SOOPOO Not exactly. I can agree to change the system to eliminate the Electoral College, and just select the President via the national popular vote, IF the country votes to do so using the procedures already in place to allow such.
If the Electoral College still exists, and the country does not eliminate it, I am against any single state not using the vote of ITS citizens to allocate ITS electoral votes.
How about assigning electoral votes due to voting in Congressional districts. Many districts in CA are hard-core republican and many districts in TX are hard core Dem. It's a step in the right direction. Why should a handful of battleground states determine the election Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World" |
|
| GenoDRPh Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2831 | Quote: terapined How about assigning electoral votes due to voting in Congressional districts. Many districts in CA are hard-core republican and many districts in TX are hard core Dem. It's a step in the right direction.
Why should a handful of battleground states determine the election
Analysis has shown that this would produce results even more extreme and contrary to the will of the voters and would not treat all voters the same, even worse than 2000 and 2016. Districts are subject to gerrymandering and political machinations worse than is already happening, that the current MAGA Supreme Court doesn't necessarily want to put a serious stop to. At least with Presidential elections and US Senate elections, gerrymandering won't effect those. Other political shenanigans might, but not gerrymandering. |
|
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 137
Posts: 21195 | Quote: GenoDRPh Analysis has shown that this would produce results even more extreme and contrary to the will of the voters and would not treat all voters the same, even worse than 2000 and 2016. Districts are subject to gerrymandering and political machinations worse than is already happening, that the current MAGA Supreme Court doesn't necessarily want to put a serious stop to. At least with Presidential elections and US Senate elections, gerrymandering won't effect those. Other political shenanigans might, but not gerrymandering.
MAGA Supreme Court? What on earth are you talking about? War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength |
