Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand how it works, but I also know that in a state that is largely ruled by one party, i.e. California or Alabama, most voters would not be anxious to see the electoral votes decided on a proportional basis unless ALL states did it. This would only work if ALL states did it the same way.
And there are other alternatives, there is something called "The National Popular Vote Interstate Pact" which calls for a state to give all electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Twelve states have signed on to it and when there are enough states to constitute 270 electoral votes they will put it into action https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
"Will put it into action". Keep dreaming. There is no way that a signatory state like Maryland would give its Electoral votes to a Republican national vote winner if a Democrat wins the state.
Nor will California, New York or DC, other signatories of the compact.
I understand how it works, but I also know that in a state that is largely ruled by one party, i.e. California or Alabama, most voters would not be anxious to see the electoral votes decided on a proportional basis unless ALL states did it. This would only work if ALL states did it the same way.
And there are other alternatives, there is something called "The National Popular Vote Interstate Pact" which calls for a state to give all electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Twelve states have signed on to it and when there are enough states to constitute 270 electoral votes they will put it into action https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
But you see, the claims of disenfranchising ring hollow, when the state which has every opportunity to prevent disenfranchising it's counter voters (and this applies to any state claiming proportional representation is the way to go), but refuses to act until everyone else does. Your state (or any state) cannot fix the issues of voters outside of that state, but it can fix those issues in that state. That the choice is that they do not, until all do, makes me believe the claims of disenfranchisement are false, and that the overall aim is, as ever, to retain power.
that pact is sponsored (paid for) by........ George Soros, who hates our republic and wants us to be a socialist nation
of course the fascist lefties are for it....its funded by Soro's
the national popular vote scheme, is a scheme from soros and the marxists/fascists
the 501(c) organization National Popular Vote Inc., a George Soros funded who’s who of the progressive left. ...billionaire George Soros fund sand supports the movement via his myriad 502(c) outfits, such as the Progressive States Network and Common Cause.
Under a National Popular Vote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B, rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant.
the electoral college is there for a reason
..to protect the little guy from the big guys
Plan for Permanent White House control by progressives happening now
Called the “National Popular Vote Compact” this movement has been in the works nationwide – without public attention – on a state-by-state level since at least 2008.
Like other surreptitious actions against the U.S. Constitution, the NPVC “movement” has several promotional websites claiming to represent “true democracy.”
Why would progressives want to switch to a National Popular Vote POTUS?
Do the math: The electoral vote system protects voting rights by giving every individual state a number of electoral votes representing the level of population. In this way, all states in the Union have a proportionate and representative say in who becomes President. It doesn’t matter if the state has more land mass than populace, or if more of the people live in rural areas, etc.
Who is behind the National Popular Vote Compact?
George Soros ...and Vikram Amar & Akhil Reed Amar
Akhil Amar has also “recently proposed that every American should be required to undergo a DNA test so that a national DNA database can be created.”
The National Public Vote Compact bill, promoted nationwide, came from this source in 2001. Since then, the same bill based on their strategy has been filed in states nationwide!
Digging into the background of the National Public Vote Compact – as a means to radically and permanently shift the basis of the Presidency, here’s what we found: highly credentialed attorneys (and brothers) who devised this “state bill” compact, as a strategy to get around the normal requirements for constitutional amendment – and, instead, undermine the Electoral College by bypassing both Congress and the voters!
plan for Permanent White House control by progressives happening now
Called the “National Popular Vote Compact” this movement has been in the works nationwide – without public attention – on a state-by-state level since at least 2008.
Like other surreptitious actions against the U.S. Constitution, the NPVC “movement” has several promotional websites claiming to represent “true democracy.”
The NPVC is a bill now moving state-by-state to make the popular vote winner President by bypassing normal requirements to amend the Constitution. Tts outcome would ensure the Presidency would be declared by giving all the required 270 Electoral Votes needed for a “winner” to the candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes nationally – no matter how small the win margin and no difference how many states voted to oppose him. Here’s
how it works:
Once enough states have passed the NPVC bill into law to reach the requisite 270 Electoral Votes (by totaling the EV’s of those states which pass this bill) the NPVC goes into immediate effect in the next – and all subsequent – Presidential elections. It doesn’t matter how strongly other states oppose this. We’d all have to go along, if even a minority of states pass it! • Currently, this bill has passed enough state houses to reach more than 160 EV’s – so they are well over half way to their goal right now.
According to most up-to-date information this National Popular Vote Pact has already passed 1 of the 2 required chambers in more than 30 other states- without public attention.
If their magic number of 270 EV totaling states is reached, it won’t matter how the rest of the states vote on this; nor whether other states never take up the bill; not even if other states vehemently object and oppose this action. It would be the Law of the Land!
This sneaky scheme to upend Constitutional rights and protections of all states and their residents in selecting the nation’s leader is underway as an explicit attempt to defeat the careful Constitutional amendment process with no public knowledge, no voter input, no public referendums and no input from states which object to this measure. All NPVC takes is a portion of current state houses to make it law for all of us – always!
Why would progressives want to switch to a National Popular Vote POTUS? Do the math: The electoral vote system protects voting rights by giving every individual state a number of electoral votes representing the level of population. In this way, all states in the Union have a proportionate and representative say in who becomes President. It doesn’t matter if the state has more land mass than populace, or if more of the people live in rural areas, etc.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this happens, and somehow the Supreme Court does not stop it, then this is the end of the country. Break it up into a few different regions.
Introspection can sometimes be difficult. If you disagree with the above list, perhaps you are actually a conservative. Without a doubt libs endorse all of the above as a matter of course. As it is difficult to admit that one is a totalitarian, most libs will deny nearly all of their core beliefs when they are printed out in front of them, but always support such policies in the voting booth.
So are you for:
1. eliminating the electoral college?
2. reducing border enforcement?
3. allowing college campuses to shout down/intimidate conservative speakers?
4. The use of ANTIFA to intimidate and harass conservatives?
5. higher taxes?
6. restricting/eliminating gun rights?
7. expanded EPA control over private property?
8. judges using judicial activism to promote leftist agendas?
Increasing governmental always occurs at the expense of individual liberties. Government is supposed to insure personal freedoms and liberties, not restrict them.
1. Not sure - but I DO recall when Republicans wanted to change the EC in 2013; perhaps you forgot.
2. No.
3. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
4. No. NOR do I approve of the Republican sponsored PROUD BOYS to intimidate and harass minorities and Democrats.
5. Very possibly.
6. Big difference between restriction and elimination so I'll just leave this one alone.
7. Examples? I certainly do not approve of militarized eminent domain as the president suggested. Are you?
8. I do not approve of activist right wing judges at all.
Actually, the dems did win the popular vote, in both Bush/Gore in 2000, and Trump/Clinton in 2016. The Electoral College made sure the popular vote was ignored. Eliminating the EC would at least slow down the rampant GOP gerrymandering.
1. Not sure - but I DO recall when Republicans wanted to change the EC in 2013; perhaps you forgot.
2. No.
3. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
4. No. NOR do I approve of the Republican sponsored PROUD BOYS to intimidate and harass minorities and Democrats.
5. Very possibly.
6. Big difference between restriction and elimination so I'll just leave this one alone.
7. Examples? I certainly do not approve of militarized eminent domain as the president suggested. Are you?
8. I do not approve of activist right wing judges at all.
funny how you spun it around from
8. judges using judicial activism to promote leftist agendas?
to
8. I do not approve of activist right wing judges at all
so what about left wing judges
what about when California does a DEMOCRATIC VOTE (prop 8) (actual democracy)..and a left wing activist judge says .nope, not going to happen, screw democracy
Actually, the dems did win the popular vote, in both Bush/Gore in 2000, and Trump/Clinton in 2016. The Electoral College made sure the popular vote was ignored. Eliminating the EC would at least slow down the rampant GOP gerrymandering.
The electoral college made sure that California, New York, and Illinois didn't select the president for the rest of us. I say, job well done.
Get busy on finding 38 states that are on board with eliminating the electoral college, and at the same time, lessening their own importance. Because you're going to have to change things via amendment. That is going to be a tough sell. Until then.....the supreme court will stop any nonsense about trying to do it by some sort of tricky legislative shortcut.
what about when California does a DEMOCRATIC VOTE (prop 8) (actual democracy)..and a left wing activist judge says .nope, not going to happen, screw democracy
You know, that proposition was one of the first things I thought of in this thread. If you really want one person, one vote, Constitution be damned you get things like gay marriage being banned even in California. You might find a majority also don't like things like abortion. Of course, they're not really advocating a true democracy, just this specific thing that would currently help their party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
