The US Moves Closer to the Popular Vote (Presidential Race)

[Stormdash]

Why shouldn't the people vote for their leader?

In the US system of government, it would basically mean that only 4-5 states would have their interests represented in a union in which all states are equal members. This would be the know-nothing-ing to which I referred.

[s_bushido]

It doesn't matter one wet and syphilitic shit whether the ballot accurately describes the fact of the matter, but "where it says it" is the now billionth time cited Article II of the Constitution of the United States. The counter-argument here is that we should actually change our system to reflect the ignorance of know-nothing shits who don't understand it -- they didn't pay attention at school, they think they are "voting for President", therefore we should humor them and govern as though they really are and in fact change our system to accommodate that mistake. Sounds legit.

That awkward moment when you don't actually know what the procedure in Article Two entails, or that the 12th Amendment exists, and yet try to berate others for their ignorance.

[Wyrt]

In the US system of government, it would basically mean that only 4-5 states would have their interests represented in a union in which all states are equal members. This would be the know-nothing-ing to which I referred.

You mean the 4-5 battle ground states that decide every election?

[Stormdash]

That awkward moment when you don't actually know what the procedure in Article Two entails, or that the 12th Amendment exists, and yet try to berate others for their ignorance.

The even more awkward moment when you bluff about knowing more, offer none of it via an actual argument, but only passive-aggressive complaint that the person who knows what he is talking about isn't doing it with a soft enough touch.

The fact remains, no individual citizen is voting for President, whether the ballot shorthands the issue or not. No voters are "unequal" to another state's since they are each doing their own thing entirely. Ultimately, EC whiners aren't upset about the EC they are upset that the US is a federal republic in the first place.

[zenkai]

Why do those that support Trump constantly say this?

Why are you such a liar?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah... You don't seem to know what that word means.

Explain to me why it wasn't, oh please show me your wisdom, I am begging you. This should be good.

[Orange Joe]

Why are you such a liar?

- - - Updated - - -



Explain to me why it wasn't, oh please show me your wisdom, I am begging you. This should be good.

bi·par·ti·san
bīˈpärdəzən/
adjective
adjective: bipartisan; adjective: bi-partisan
of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies.

How about you tell me how it involves the agreement or cooperation of 2 political parties?

I think what you meant to say was it's was an unbiased joke.

[Mayhem]

To be fair, people here usually tend to argue against it, because they're hardcore traditionalists. Changing the system would mean the US isn't perfect as it is right now. Clearly that doesn't fly with some people, it would be quite unpatriotic to suggest changing something that is so clearly perfect in every single way.

True, that would be really stupid.

[Endus]

In the US system of government, it would basically mean that only 4-5 states would have their interests represented in a union in which all states are equal members. This would be the know-nothing-ing to which I referred.

At least you're clear that you oppose egalitarian democracy.

Because the reason those 4-5 States would have their interests represented above others would be because those States contain 50% or more of the American population. In which case, of course their interests are weighed more heavily; they represent more Americans.

Equality between the States is already present in the Senate, as part of your bicameral Congress. You haven't made any real argument defending the EC, here.

- - - Updated - - -

The even more awkward moment when you bluff about knowing more, offer none of it via an actual argument, but only passive-aggressive complaint that the person who knows what he is talking about isn't doing it with a soft enough touch.

The fact remains, no individual citizen is voting for President, whether the ballot shorthands the issue or not. No voters are "unequal" to another state's since they are each doing their own thing entirely. Ultimately, EC whiners aren't upset about the EC they are upset that the US is a federal republic in the first place.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd have seen that their issue isn't that the US is a republic, but that said republic unfairly privileges the voices of citizens of some States over those of others.

[Mormolyce]

The counter-argument here is that we should actually change our system to reflect the ignorance of know-nothing shits who don't understand it -- they didn't pay attention at school, they think they are "voting for President", therefore we should humor them and govern as though they really are and in fact change our system to accommodate that mistake. Sounds legit.

You literally are in every sense of the word voting for the President. It's actually you who doesn't understand how the Electoral College works.

Or maybe English.

- - - Updated - - -

In the US system of government, it would basically mean that only 4-5 states would have their interests represented in a union in which all states are equal members. This would be the know-nothing-ing to which I referred.

It would mean that everyone would get the same vote regardless of where they live and nobody would have their vote arbitrarily not count.

If you are a Californian Republican, your vote doesn't count. If you are a Texan Democrat, your vote doesn't count. In fact the WTA rule means that the electoral college disenfranchises about 30-40% of voters every election.

It also doesn't do shit for smaller states. Sure, Wyoming has a massively inflated voting power compared to California, for example. But why is no election ever decided in Wyoming? Because it's still too small, and the WTA rule means that elections are instead decided by massive swings in the two largest swing states - Florida and Ohio. Most elections are won on thin margins in Florida - in a sense the rest of the country hardly matters.

The Electoral College is a terrible system that doesn't serve anyone well. The Republican advantage in it is pretty small and only becomes relevant in extremely tight elections. Mostly it just skews results arbitrarily and misrepresents the voting public.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact remains, no individual citizen is voting for President, whether the ballot shorthands the issue or not. No voters are "unequal" to another state's since they are each doing their own thing entirely.

Everything you just said is literally, factually, proveably wrong.

Every citizen votes directly for the President.

The EC then creatively interprets those votes through a stupid system, and nonsense comes out the other end.

[Antiganon]

As a progressive, I'm fine with requiring government ID. It absolutely needs to be offered for free, and given to people at age 16 while in high school. It can also be updated at a load of local government buildings, and should have online/mail-in option for those who are unable to go.

Polls also need to be open in more locations, and elections need to be a national holiday. Mail in/early voting needs to be expanded dramatically.

If someone wants to vote, there should be essentially no barrier, public or private, preventing them from exercising their right.

This.

We suck at elections in this country. We have them for longer than most other countries, and they are actually free elections (as opposed to say Russia), but we absolutely SUCK at the minutia of administering them.

[zenkai]

How about you tell me how it involves the agreement or cooperation of 2 political parties?

I think what you meant to say was it's was an unbiased joke.

bipartisan
[bahy-pahr-tuh-zuh n]

Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions:
Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy.


Try again kiddo

[cubby]

Yeah, the founders gave immense power to the states to choose electors. Remember our Senators also used to be elected by the state legislatures as well.

For your question: it might be a sense of traditionalism. It could also be a sense of constitutional worship. Conservatives tend to accept the constitution as absolute law and infallible (Grossly generalized/oversimplified) , whereas progressives tend to see it as a flawed, historical document that needs a lot of work through the amendment process.

I do believe there is some legitimate malice though, the last two republic presidents won their first term on the back of the EC, I'm sure that fact is not lost on many republicans, and they want to protect it for that reason.

I don't think there's a blanket reason. I think it's really protected by republican lawmakers. Someone linked a source earlier in the thread claiming that even a majority of republicans support direct elections. For the lawmakers, I believe it is primarily malice. It's the same reason they have voter "ID" (see: suppression) laws, limited polls, and voter purges. It's how they stay in power. Republican congress is much stronger with a republican president, so you'll never see an amendment come out without a blue trifecta.

I could see where a combination of traditionalism and tribalism keep people who ought to know better under a head-in-the-sand herd mentality. I know plenty of smart republicans who balk at the very notion of removing the EC process. I agree as well that many people have legitimate malice towards keeping the EC, as they know it's the only way an entire generation ever got a GOP into the white house.

You mentioned that we wouldn't see the EC up for a take-down until there is a blue trifecta, and while I agree with the sentiment, I think it will take far more than that. Amending the constitution also takes 3/4 of states approval. To me - that will almost certainly prevent it from happening.

Which is why I'm flabbergasted at this bold move by the 11 states who have already signed on. It's brilliant, and completely circumvents the archaic EC process.

- - - Updated - - -

The even more awkward moment when you bluff about knowing more, offer none of it via an actual argument, but only passive-aggressive complaint that the person who knows what he is talking about isn't doing it with a soft enough touch.

The fact remains, no individual citizen is voting for President, whether the ballot shorthands the issue or not. No voters are "unequal" to another state's since they are each doing their own thing entirely. Ultimately, EC whiners aren't upset about the EC they are upset that the US is a federal republic in the first place.

So you're ignorant and shitty at math now? Lovely.

Or have you figured out now that the EC makes some votes worth more than others?

[Antiganon]

I could see where a combination of traditionalism and tribalism keep people who ought to know better under a head-in-the-sand herd mentality. I know plenty of smart republicans who balk at the very notion of removing the EC process. I agree as well that many people have legitimate malice towards keeping the EC, as they know it's the only way an entire generation ever got a GOP into the white house.

You mentioned that we wouldn't see the EC up for a take-down until there is a blue trifecta, and while I agree with the sentiment, I think it will take far more than that. Amending the constitution also takes 3/4 of states approval. To me - that will almost certainly prevent it from happening.

Which is why I'm flabbergasted at this bold move by the 11 states who have already signed on. It's brilliant, and completely circumvents the archaic EC process.

It's brilliant when you get 270 votes worth of states to sign on. That is the state legislatures for about half the country already - in other words, 2/3 of the way to an amendment.

It would be much better in the long run to do this as an amendment though - then it becomes the supreme law of the land, and NOBODY can question whether or not it is legal.

[cubby]

It's brilliant when you get 270 votes worth of states to sign on. That is the state legislatures for about half the country already - in other words, 2/3 of the way to an amendment.

It would be much better in the long run to do this as an amendment though - then it becomes the supreme law of the land, and NOBODY can question whether or not it is legal.

270 isn't half the states. The coalition is already at 165 with 11 states.

However, I agree that if the amendment were possible, it would be much better. No legal issues whatsoever. However, as @GothamCity pointed out, the Constitution makes it abundantly clear the states have every right to use this method.

[PACOX]

270 isn't half the states. The coalition is already at 165 with 11 states.

Correct, but 270 EC votes represents about half of the voting population in the US (per the last census).

[cubby]

Correct, but 270 EC votes represents about half of the voting population in the US (per the last census).

But he was claiming "[t]hat is the state legislatures for about half the country already", which it isn't. 270 EC votes definitely represents half the voting population, but not necessarily half the voting states.

[lvbuckeye]

You all *think* you want this, but you really don't. NY and CA will carry every single presidential election. Hillary might have won the popular vote, but she lost the EC in a freaking landslide.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[God Save The King]

But he was claiming "[t]hat is the state legislatures for about half the country already", which it isn't. 270 EC votes definitely represents half the voting population, but not necessarily half the voting states.

Yeah, in the most extreme case, you only need 11 states to reach 270.

California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Illinois (20), Ohio (18), Georgia (16), Michigan (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14). Those 11 states actually perfectly add up to 270, funny coincidence.

[Gestopft]

In the US system of government, it would basically mean that only 4-5 states would have their interests represented in a union in which all states are equal members. This would be the know-nothing-ing to which I referred.

1) We have the Senate that represents all states equally

2) Your numbers are off. Top 4 states gets you to about 1/3 of the population. The current estimate is closer to 9 states equaling half of the population, but since these states aren't hive minds, and disagree within and between themselves about what their interests are, it wouldn't even be remotely accurate to say that only nine states have their interests represented. In any case, nine states "determining" the election is still loads better than our current "Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida" elections.

- - - Updated - - -

You all *think* you want this, but you really don't. NY and CA will carry every single presidential election.

This is a load of crap. NY+CA are about 18% of the population. Not enough to "carry" an election- not that it would matter. A national popular vote makes the states irrelevant and treats every citizen equally.

[God Save The King]

You mentioned that we wouldn't see the EC up for a take-down until there is a blue trifecta, and while I agree with the sentiment, I think it will take far more than that. Amending the constitution also takes 3/4 of states approval. To me - that will almost certainly prevent it from happening.

Which is why I'm flabbergasted at this bold move by the 11 states who have already signed on. It's brilliant, and completely circumvents the archaic EC process

Sorry, I might not have been clear, I meant you'll never see an amendment come out of the federal government without a blue trifecta. You need a supermajority joint resolution of both chambers. It will likely never happen, since such power is extraordinarily rare in US politics.