Alert: Maine Senate Passes National Popular Vote Bill To Bypass Electoral College

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Like other's have stated I believe this to be unconstitutional. However, if it is not brought before the SCOTUS or if it not ruled unconstitutional. . .

If I remember correctly the popular vote in 2016 was less than 3 million difference. I will laugh so hard when these states are forced to hand their EC votes to Trump.

well you're talking about democrats, their plan is to cheat of course. just show up with boxes and boxes of ballots in the final hour to beat trump by just enough.

party of crime.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If only the popular vote existed the majority of states would have no say in our Presidential elections making New York and California the dictatorships that will rule the United States...

That is a completely BS argument.

Read my post again. Popular votes tally ALL votes, and all votes count, regardless of rural or city. It does not allocate winner take all, which is disproportionate to the popular vote, as the EC does, and which disenfranchises the minority (if the EC allocated itself as proportionate to the popular vote, I would have no problem with it, but it doesn't in the majority of states). This is not about the pseudo-argument "some states will have no say," because EVERY vote will be tallied and counted across the entire country.

Try to understand.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: infolurker

This is so shortsighted, it's insane. In the end, these laws will either be found unconstitutional or cause major unrest throughout the country. It ultimately cripples the Midwest representation. People are going to feel extremely disenfranchised.

It's basically saying, however New York and LA vote, that's our president.

Trump is from New York.

And?
He doesn't run New York. You do know that. Right?

This is such an absurd reply, it baffles me.

Don't you love it in the US, at the way empty prairie land has a bigger vote than most citizens.

Explain.

BTW, I don't think you understand what sarcasm is.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut

It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes. 

It could always try and go it alone.

Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.

The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.

It is "tyranny of the minority".

That's what you have.

No that is not correct; leveling the playing field so that small states have a more equal footing as compared to big states is not "tyranny of the minority"; it's the equilibrium that insures that the conserns of all states can have the opportunity to be addressed.

Popular Vote --- Electoral College --- The Hunger Games

tyranny of the majority -------------- tyranny of the minority

originally posted by: chr0naut
The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.

It is "tyranny of the minority".

That's what you have.

Wrong again... In the United States, as a Constitutional and representative Republic, every person "as individuals' have rights... There is no dictatorship of the minority. In fact the EC only ruled 5 times who should be POTUS. In one of those occasions Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote, and if the EC didn't exist we probably would have slavery alive in the U.S. maybe even to this day.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut

It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes. 

It could always try and go it alone.

Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.

The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.

It is "tyranny of the minority".

That's what you have.

No that is not correct; leveling the playing field so that small states have a more equal footing as compared to big states is not "tyranny of the minority"; it's the equalinreum that insures that the conserns of all states can have the opportunity to be addressed.

Popular Vote --- Electoral College --- The Hunger Games

tyranny of the minority -------------- tyranny of the minority

It's cool, the poster was just being sarcastic. That's what means, obviously. It's a workaround for using logic.

originally posted by: Liquesence


That is a completely BS argument.

It isn't BS, in fact it is your argument that is BS, since your argument would also dissolve most states, and their rights, and would be ruled only by California and New York...

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If only the popular vote existed the majority of states would have no say in our Presidential elections making New York and California the dictatorships that will rule the United States...

That is a completely BS argument.

Read my post again. Popular votes tally ALL votes, and all votes count, regardless of rural or city. It does not allocate winner take all, which is disproportionate to the popular vote, as the EC does, and which disenfranchises the minority (if the EC allocated itself as proportionate to the popular vote, I would have no problem with it, but it doesn't in the majority of states). This is not about the pseudo-argument "some states will have no say," because EVERY vote will be tallied and counted across the entire country.

Try to understand.

Try to understand that there are different regional conserns in a country the size of the US; which is only exasperated by how heterogeneous our population is.

The concept of every vote counting equally sounds fair and appealing until you realize it will allow politicians to pander to more densely populated areas in order to increase their return on investment during an election.

Why would a politician waist time listening to the conserns of the people of Mississippi and Alaska; When they can simply fly back and forth between New York and LA and get all the votes they need to win the popular vote?

Oh but you might say; All the other regions will band together and vote for the "other guy". But how could they? The concerns of Mississippi are not the same conserns as Alaska; the "other guy" couldn't possibly pander to all of these regions and still out pace the guy flying back and forth between New York and LA.

Election after Election the guy flying back and forth will win handily until all polititions realize the game and than no one will ever go see what's going on in Mississippi and Alaska. Those states and other like them will be abandoned due to political expediency... they will eventually leave the union, because why stay a part of a system that has abandoned listening to your concerns?

That is why the Electoral College was thought up in the first place. With out it there would have been no union because most states would have saw little benefit from it.

a reply to: sine.nomine

I can not see the Supreme Court letting this particular idiocy stand...

God, how blindly stupid are these people??

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: sine.nomine

I can not see the Supreme Court letting this particular idiocy stand...

God, how blindly stupid are these people??

Never underestimate stupid, it will get you every time.

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: infolurker

This is so shortsighted, it's insane. In the end, these laws will either be found unconstitutional or cause major unrest throughout the country. It ultimately cripples the Midwest representation. People are going to feel extremely disenfranchised.

It's basically saying, however New York and LA vote, that's our president.

Trump is from New York.

And?
He doesn't run New York. You do know that. Right?

This is such an absurd reply, it baffles me.

Don't you love it in the US, at the way empty prairie land has a bigger vote than most citizens.

Explain.

BTW, I don't think you understand what sarcasm is.

Wyoming.

a reply to: chr0naut

Because New York City and LA can produce plenty of crops and cattle. And LA doesn't syphon water like crazy from the "less important" areas.



Read some damn history.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Because New York City and LA can produce plenty of crops and cattle. And LA doesn't syphon water like crazy from the "less important" areas.

Read some damn history.

Come now; if we inact a popular vote that water will simply be made the property of LA. Those less important areas can complain all they want; but they will have to accept that the people in LA need that water more than they do... because they are the majority.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut

It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes. 

It could always try and go it alone.

Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.

The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.

It is "tyranny of the minority".

That's what you have.

No that is not correct; leveling the playing field so that small states have a more equal footing as compared to big states is not "tyranny of the minority"; it's the equilibrium that insures that the conserns of all states can have the opportunity to be addressed.

Popular Vote --- Electoral College --- The Hunger Games

tyranny of the majority -------------- tyranny of the minority

If you are not under majority rule, you aren't being ruled or you are under minority rule. They are the only options.

Also, the proportionality of the Electoral College is based upon the number of chairs that they could cram into a rather old hall.

In a country of hundreds of millions of citizens, a couple of hundred actual voters cannot possibly be fairly representative.

538 EC electors divided by about 235,248,000 voting citizens = 0.00022869% of the population (roughly).

In other words as unrepresentative as you can get without people dying of continuous simultaneous super hard 'face palms'.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

If the majority of the voters in your state vote for someone...

Then their votes are given to the winner of the popular vote and it isn't who they voted for...

Popular votes divide the vote evenly and fairly across the board: whoever gets the most in the tally wins.

Not when the popular vote is gained by manipulation, broken promises and self seeking agendas. Do you think the dems really care about all of the illegals that have flooded into the country over the years and continue to do so? The dems are willing to sell their souls for a vote if it allows them to obtain power. Their motives are nefarious and fairly obvious to most.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut

It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes. 

It could always try and go it alone.

Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.

The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.

It is "tyranny of the minority".

That's what you have.

No that is not correct; leveling the playing field so that small states have a more equal footing as compared to big states is not "tyranny of the minority"; it's the equilibrium that insures that the conserns of all states can have the opportunity to be addressed.

Popular Vote --- Electoral College --- The Hunger Games

tyranny of the majority -------------- tyranny of the minority

If you are not under majority rule, you aren't being ruled or you are under minority rule. They are the only options.

Also, the proportionality of the Electoral College is based upon the number of chairs that they could cram into a rather old hall.

In a country of hundreds of millions of citizens, a couple of hundred actual voters cannot possibly be fairly representative.

538 EC electors divided by about 235,248,000 voting citizens = 0.00022869% of the population (roughly).

In other words as unrepresentative as you can get without people dying of continuous simultaneous super hard 'face palms'.

Why would you devide the 538 EC electors by anything more than 50? They represent the states not the people in those states.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut

It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes. 

It could always try and go it alone.

Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.

The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.

It is "tyranny of the minority".

That's what you have.

No that is not correct; leveling the playing field so that small states have a more equal footing as compared to big states is not "tyranny of the minority"; it's the equilibrium that insures that the conserns of all states can have the opportunity to be addressed.

Popular Vote --- Electoral College --- The Hunger Games

tyranny of the majority -------------- tyranny of the minority

If you are not under majority rule, you aren't being ruled or you are under minority rule. They are the only options.

Also, the proportionality of the Electoral College is based upon the number of chairs that they could cram into a rather old hall.

In a country of hundreds of millions of citizens, a couple of hundred actual voters cannot possibly be fairly representative.

538 EC electors divided by about 235,248,000 voting citizens = 0.00022869% of the population (roughly).

In other words as unrepresentative as you can get without people dying of continuous simultaneous super hard 'face palms'.

Why would you devide the 538 EC electors by anything more than 50? They represent the states not the people in those states.

Because a parcel of ground doesn't care who steps on it.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Because New York City and LA can produce plenty of crops and cattle. And LA doesn't syphon water like crazy from the "less important" areas.

Read some damn history.

LOL,

Flyover states could choke NY and Ca out in a flash if they wanted. Something I don't think the dems have taken into serious consideration. If those states think they can hold the rest of the country hostage they've a rude awakening coming.

Just for fun, lets say I am a schizophrenic. I have more than 5 million distinctly separate personalities. Each and every one of them wants to vote. Its who I identify as, at any given moment and that is all that counts, right liberals?

So here it is: I like Trump. So do I. Me too. Yeah, me too. I'm right there with ya. Me too. Count me in. And so on for the rest of me.

A few more people like me and that should take care of the illegal vote. Now, lets get on with the real election...