Jump to content


National Popular Vote Interstate Compact


Recommended Posts

On 5/9/2018 at 7:40 PM, RedDenver said:

The EC gave us W and Trump - the worst Presidents since at least Nixon. That's "broken" in my book, especially since we know that every single other elected official gets elected by popular vote and it works fine.

 

On 5/10/2018 at 6:07 AM, knapplc said:

 

Exactly. And the only reason people don't see this as a problem is, in their mind, their team won.

 

It would be a problem if the other team had won. That's party over country, and that is actually the biggest problem facing America right now.

 

Knapp- That may be true in many cases but "my team" really has/had no bearing at all on my feelings about these two. I don't think W was all that terrible. Sure there were a couple things that were not handled well, but as far as a candidate and a President I don't think he was all that bad. (I know many here will vehemently disagree. There is no need to rehash this here). Trump on the other hand.......Anyway, it's not as simple as party first being the major problem. But I do agree it is primarily that sentiment that gave us Trump. I think the biggest problem is that too many just can't figure out what is really best for the country. I'd venture that most of "those" people actually think Trump is best and that's the scariest thing.

Link to comment

1 minute ago, Comfortably Numb said:

I don't think W was all that terrible. Sure there were a couple things that were not handled well, but as far as a candidate and a President I don't think he was all that bad.

 

In hindsight no, W wasn't that terrible. I opposed many of the things he did, but those were mostly policy issues. He was, and probably still is, fit for office. 

 

I'd take three more terms of W before another month of Trump. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

I recently read W's book Decision Points, and it was interesting hearing this from his point of view. Between 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, the financial collapse,etc I'd forgotten all the major issues during his terms.  I don't agree with much of the conservative ideology, so i didn't agree with his decisions, but it seemed he had the best interests of the country in mind while making them. From what i've seen of Trump i cant really say that's true, so yeah id take W over him all day.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm only talking about Presidential candidates.

 

Candidates don't ignore rural America.  They ignore non-swing states.  Live in Iowa for a while and you will see candidates all over the state.  But...gosh....that Missouri River is just too big and scary to cross over into Nebraska.

I live in Colorado and candidates come here all the time but rarely if ever outside of Denver.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

This just does not compute. Each vote would count as 1 vote, which is the complete opposite of what you're saying. A vote in western Nebraska will count the same as one in Los Angeles. Right now a vote in Nebraska counts for more than a vote in Los Angeles - for presidency, and a voter in Nebraska gets more representation in the House and the Senate. Whenever people make this argument the only way it holds up is if people in cities are one giant blob of homogeny. That just isn't the case. There isn't one, singular way of life for people in cities that's alien to people in non-urban areas.

I feel like there's a good analogy for this. I'm going to try and probably fail.

The argument you're making is like saying all the people in cities are fuji apples and the rest of the people are green peppers. When in reality, 60% of the people in cities are fruits of all types, 40% are vegetables, 60% of the people in rural areas are vegetables and 40% are fruits. There isn't some huge barrier that separates cityfolk and countryfolk into 2 different homogenous, groupthinking masses. There's a huge variety of people in both cities and rural areas and there are also similar people with shared concerns in both and they should all have a vote that counts the same.

 

The senate can protect the interests of the lowly populated areas.

 

Large urban cities tend to vote liberal.  For a Republican to win in many large urban cities he or she has to be fairly centrist or slightly liberal. 

 

I got your point the first time--I just disagree.

Link to comment

6 hours ago, RedDenver said:

This is a ridiculous argument. The entire idea of governments and politics to to create and modify the rules. To say that we shouldn't "change the rules" is to give up on progress and to instead stay stuck in whatever century the current rules happened to be authored.

 

But we're not talking about some antiquated rule that no longer makes sense.  Further, I have no problem with changing the rules if all parties agree to it.  Getting rid of the Electoral College and going to a popular vote is a thing because only one side wants to do it and they whine like a baby when they lose.  

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

Were votes in California from the 2016 election nullified

 

 

Yes. Any votes that put the winning candidate more than 1 vote above the next candidate are irrelevant, or "nullified," when using the electoral college.

 

You're looking at this from the wrong angle, imo. Instead of, for whatever random reason, picking this thing to be upset at Democrats for "whining" over, maybe you should wonder why the Republicans aren't "whining." The popular vote is logical. The electoral college is illogical. It's akin to saying you support gerrymandering. The Republicans aren't upset about the electoral college because every. single. time. in the history of the United States, when the popular vote and electoral college didn't agree, the Republican won the election. The same goes with gerrymandering. It is largely benefiting Republicans, so they don't give a s#!t. Both should give a s#!t, not neither.

 

As someone mentioned earlier, one of the main purposes of the electoral college was to protect the idiot masses from themselves. It allowed the voters to ignore the public if they so chose.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Were votes in California from the 2016 election nullified because Mr. Orange won?

Funny enough yes votes were nullified by the EC in California but it was any vote for donny that was nullified. But if we were under this compact, Hilary would have won.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

But we're not talking about some antiquated rule that no longer makes sense.  Further, I have no problem with changing the rules if all parties agree to it.  Getting rid of the Electoral College and going to a popular vote is a thing because only one side wants to do it and they whine like a baby when they lose.  

We are indeed talking about an antiquated rule and whether it makes sense. And it doesn't matter if the parties want or don't want the rule - it's whether the rule makes sense and whether the citizens want the rule or to change it.

 

I'm not on either "side" and I still want it changed. And polling shows that over 50% of the American people have wanted the popular vote as opposed to the EC going back at least 30 years now: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-more-americans-believe-popular-vote-should-decide-the-president/

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

8 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I live in Colorado and candidates come here all the time but rarely if ever outside of Denver.

 

W came to Greeley, Palin (VP) was in Loveland and many from both parties regularly visit Colorado Springs, Boulder, Fort Collins....but yeah, Denver is by far the most prevalent stop.

Link to comment
On 5/25/2018 at 12:46 AM, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Good info.  However, the difference is with the system as is now, red states vote red and blue states vote blue so yeah Presdential candidates will spend the bulk of their time in swing states.

 

Going to a popular vote model probably won't change where candidates for President campaign, but it will change who runs and gets elected.  If it goes to popular vote then pretty much no (R) will ever win the Presidency ever again--unless he moves considerably to the left.  That's the part I don't like: play the game by the rules as they exist.  Don't whine and try to change the rules just because the outcome isn't in your favor.

That sounds like a Republican problem. Which is why they are perfectly content with keeping things the way they are. Remember when they were whining and complaining when the courts started remapping districts? Everyone does it when things don't go their way. Rules and laws are changed all the time when it is determined that there is a better way of doing something. If you were to go up to people with no vested interest in this argument and asked them if having one person's vote count for more than another's was fair, I'm pretty confident that the majority of them would say no.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...