Popular vote is just a way to steal every election for theDemocrats.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Marine1, Mar 21, 2019.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I want American voters to matter, not empty space. We should never, EVER have a president serving office whom American voters soundly rejected. The very idea is un-American.
     
  2. GeddonM3

    GeddonM3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    20,283
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    83

    American voters do matter , they win their states one way or another.

    Every state needs a voice , not just 2 or 3 cities controlling the rest of the country .
     
    pjohns likes this.
  3. GeddonM3

    GeddonM3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    20,283
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There are ups and downs to everything, but popular vote is only gonna go down .

    Majority does not control minority in thous country , remember ?
     
  4. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Geography is irrelevant. The citizenry is what matters, and who have a right to choose their elected officials. Smaller unpopulated states voters carry more weight than larger populated states. This has now led to a president serving in office who actual American voters rejected. the very idea is un-American.
     
    Woolley likes this.
  5. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would it be fair to surmise that if Donald Trump had won the popular vote, while Hillary Clinton won the electoral vote--just the opposite of what actually happened--you would not have been particularly upset by the result, or viewed it as "un-American"?
     
  6. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would be just as upset. This isn't, or shouldn't be, a partisan issue. The issue is having an elected official, who the American people soundly rejected, holding office. Had Obama lost the popular vote to McCain, but won the EC, I would have said the same thing then.
     
  7. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,989
    Likes Received:
    11,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As has been discussed ad nauseum, the issue is more complicated than that.
     
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it isn't. One voter, one vote. Whoever gets the most votes by the voters, should be holding office. Having someone hold office that the voters specifically rejected, is un-American.
     
  9. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Because they know its the only way they can win an election.
     
  10. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don’t support the popular vote, but your logic is very bad here. Why should the votes in smaller states carry more weight than the votes in the bigger states. That’s effectively what the electoral college does. A person’s vote in California means less than it does in Oklahoma. Why is that fair?

    At the end of the day I think we should keep the electoral college because we’ve always had it. But don’t pretend it is more fair than the alternative.
     
  11. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,989
    Likes Received:
    11,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you think it is not complicated, watch how hard it is to change the constitution. Not going to happen.
     
  12. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strawman. I didn't say changing the constitution wasn't complicated. I correctly pointed out citizens voting for president would not be.
     
  13. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,989
    Likes Received:
    11,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If changing the constitution is complicated, then issue must also be complicated. It has been changed several times in my lifetime over issues which were not complicated.
     
  14. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,936
    Likes Received:
    15,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that have to do with what he was talking about? Oh right, nothing. You're just conflating once again.
     
  15. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no
    awesome. as soon as a republican wins the popular vote, but loses the presidency, changing the constitution will be much easier. The issue of one voter, one vote is in no way complicated.
     
  16. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    4,134
    Likes Received:
    962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have an idea since money is speech. Each of us gets one vote for every dollar we report as AGI on the last year before an election. If your AGI is 56,000, you get 56,000 votes. Money is speech is it not? Why allow the Sheldon Adelsons and Kochs to use money as a form of voting when the rest of us have no chance at all? Is this not the inevitable outcome of a system that relies upon money to win elections? Make it universal, you get as much power as you earn, it would be a Randian paradise, a libertarian wet dream, a conservatives utopia that would marginalize the poor.
     
  17. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,508
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How dare those Democrats win elections by getting more people to vote for them!

    This has to be the funniest thread title ever.
     
  18. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They have their voices. The right opposes the popular vote because it would make it a bit harder for the right to continue to steal elections.
     
  19. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then you are in favor of plebiscitary democracy.

    I am not. In fact, I am emphatically not.

    Rather, I am in favor of a constitutional republic--which is precisely what we have been given, by the Founders.
     
  20. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you are ok being governed by a person the American people rejected. The very idea of such a thing is entirely un-American.
     
  21. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,989
    Likes Received:
    11,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not so wishy washy that I would want to change the constitution because of a single event. I look at the long term. The long term is that the smaller states would have a president who ignores them because their state no longer counts as much. He would only have to be concerned about the big states to get elected.
     
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    having a president serve in office against the will of the people is detrimental to a free society.
    No, they wouldn't. EVERY voters vote should count the same. Smaller states votes are weighted more than larger populated states. That in no way makes sense in 2019. In the 18th century when candidates had to travel by horse and buggy, or railroad, they needed to visit each state in order to get their platform out. In 2019 this is obsolete.
     
  23. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,989
    Likes Received:
    11,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its not going to change. Live with it.
     
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yea, they said the same thing when women wanted to vote, and for every other amendment that was added. It's only happened 2 in my lifetime, but if a president is selected to office against the will of the people being governed, it will be changed. Live with it.
     
  25. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am "ok" with our being governed by the person elected the precise way that the Founders intended: i.e. through the Electoral College.

    (By the way, I believe that over 90 percent of the counties in America--perhaps it is even over 95 percent; I am not certain--voted for Donald Trump. But you seem to be entirely sanguine with our leaving the decision to the people of just a few mega-counties, while writing off everyone else as mere inhabitants of "flyover country.")
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2019

Share This Page