Nevada governor vetoed the National Popular vote

a reply to: Arnie123

I get that.........entirely, but the real problem is that today even, a vast majority of the US population lives in the Cities, (if you can call that living). And worse, going forward, an even greater percentage of the population will be living in the Major Metro Areas and those populations are overwhelmingly Democrat. The whole reason for TDS is the fact that the population of the US no longer recognizes the as authentic these elections where the EC result is at odds with the popular vote count.

It is what it is; the rural areas are becoming "ghost" zones.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Honestly, anymore, considering the really poor quality of US politicians today, I could care less who occupies the White House.

a reply to: TonyS

That's not it. The popular vote has nothing to do with it. They care because #OrangeManBad.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You forgetting the Bush/Gore election? That was a crap storm as well.

a reply to: incoserv

How warning labels ruined everything...

Democrazy is reasonable in groups of like 2 or 3 people when the outcomes are benign. Outside of that...its a stupid game and when you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sly1one

Sure it does. Any imbecile can do anything they want. There are no rules if there is no one empowered to enforce them.

I would bet you the farm...smart people would enslave and eradicate the imbeciles almost immediately. They wouldn't last 2 days in anarchy...Stupid ideas don't win in nature....but they do in deomcrazy!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

Actually, the Constitution says little about the choosing of the electors... it pretty much leaves that up to the states. A Supreme Court decision would likely favor the states.

TheRedneck

Not exactly. The Constitution mandates that interstate compacts receive Congressional approval prior to full enactment. That means Congress would have to approve this before it could go anywhere and that approval would be subject to filibuster and, then, veto. Further, while the Constitution does grant electoral authority to state legislatures, it does so with the underlying requirement that the process remain within the framework of our established system and norms, AND is so done in a manner which neither dienfranchises voters nor violates the public trust. (This is why the courts have interfered in state elections routinely in the past when either voters were disenfranchised or the public trust was violated.)

This has zero chance of standing up to challenge.

originally posted by: Sly1one

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sly1one

Sure it does. Any imbecile can do anything they want. There are no rules if there is no one empowered to enforce them.

I would bet you the farm...smart people would enslave and eradicate the imbeciles almost immediately. They wouldn't last 2 days in anarchy...Stupid ideas don't win in nature....but they do in deomcrazy!

Social Darwinism is so sorely needed in this world. It would allow nature to do what nature does and better us all as a species.

a reply to: Sly1one

99% of the world are the imbeciles.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TonyS

Would you be equally in favor if it guaranteed a Republican president every year?

If Republicans turned California and New York into strongholds, you bet they would want to reverse it.

I gotta' move back to Wyoming!

F# this state!

I live in a blue state. It's been blue since Regan's first term. Do you know how many conservatives living in blue states don't even bother to vote because it's pointless?

I'm in favor of the electoral college and trust it will continue but I don't think the D's have any clue how badly they'll get their ass whooped if they managed to do away with it.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TonyS

Would you be equally in favor if it guaranteed a Republican president every year?

If Republicans turned California and New York into strongholds, you bet they would want to reverse it.

Even as a non-American, the idea of abandoning the electoral college process in favour of a national popular vote scares the hell out of me. It will lead to irreparable damage to the future of American citizens and their ability to participate in the election of their own President.

For most smaller states, they will effectively no longer have the need to participate. If those states are going to continue to be part of the 'United States', participating in the selection of the President is the most basic and fundamental part.

a reply to: slowisfast

Surely for Trump, the winning strategy for 2020 is to hammer the Democrat nominee in every debate about whether they currently support the left's push towards abandoning the electoral college for a national popular vote.

Then at every rally in any state that isn't New York or California, hammer the point that the Democrats do not care about their opinion, and they should come out to enjoy voting for the very last time...

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
Any State that would pass this would end up at the SC. Once there, the constitution wins.

End of game.

Fred..

I can't fathom why any small state (like Delaware or Vermont) would want to go with this scheme. They're guaranteeing that no presidential candidate will pay even the slightest attention to them.

Can you fathom that TDS is a real thing?
People forfeiting their states rights because orange man bad

We just need to split into East and West America .
One side will live by the constitution only and the other side can live in idiocracy and see which side lasts longer.

I am really disturbed that any state would pass a law that says they will go with the national vote, they would actually be destroying the wishes of their citizens of the state and allowing some big cities to choose the president. Right now it is Democrats, but it may change. If these big cities all voted for a third party candidate that nobody in the nation other than them voted for, that means they could get a third party candidate elected that nobody else in the country voted for.

That would lead to a dictatorship controlled by high population cities. Basicly, anyone growing their food or making their products would become slaves to the big city people.

Time for a revolution if that happens. That is not what our forefathers wanted, neither do we.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: TheRedneck

Frankly, I'm all in favor of this...

...The passing of this bill would mean that the only elections that would truly matter would be the Democrat Party Primary elections. Then, the General Election in November would merely be a "confirmation" process, seating the winner of the Democrat Party Primary elections.

Regardless of anyone's opinions of the current President, I genuinely cannot fathom that there are actually people who believe that this is a good idea.

People are actually championing the idea of reverting to the control of a one-party system? This is simply absurd.

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

But... but... muh democracy?

Luckily we here in America live in a Republic .......

People would never know that by reading the paper, watching any news, or listening to most all deceptive politicians, who constantly refer to America as "our democracy" rather than our constitutional republic.

It has Supreme Court written all over it.