Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 77
  1. #51
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilot321 View Post
    So, the system we have in place since the beginning to elect Presidents has worked fine. The Electoral College. Now, your candidate loses dramatically, and all of a sudden it is invalid. If you really believe that, AMEND the Constitution. Until then your arguments are meaningless.
    . . . .

    The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. . The Founders had been dead for decades

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

  2. #52
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    67,609
    Quote Originally Posted by oldgulph View Post
    The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. . The Founders had been dead for decades

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

    States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
    The electoral vote can be changed at the State level if the majority of it's citizens want it to. Tennessee can't change the way Nevada's electoral votes are filed though, just the way Tennessee reps. cast theirs.

  3. #53
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    The electoral vote can be changed at the State level if the majority of it's citizens want it to. Tennessee can't change the way Nevada's electoral votes are filed though, just the way Tennessee reps. cast theirs.
    The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    Article II, Section 1
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

  4. #54
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    The electoral vote can be changed at the State level if the majority of it's citizens want it to. Tennessee can't change the way Nevada's electoral votes are filed though, just the way Tennessee reps. cast theirs.
    How would you react to the national popular vote movement where state are doing an end run around of the rules?
    I fully expect the gop party to find a way to fight that one with in a year of it going live because let's fact it facts speak for themselves gop has only won one of the last 6 popular votes and they were riding high on 9/11 from that one so who knows if they would of won it if 9/11 did not happen.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  5. #55
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    21,465
    Quote Originally Posted by timeless View Post
    How would you react to the national popular vote movement where state are doing an end run around of the rules?
    I fully expect the gop party to find a way to fight that one with in a year of it going live because let's fact it facts speak for themselves gop has only won one of the last 6 popular votes and they were riding high on 9/11 from that one so who knows if they would of won it if 9/11 did not happen.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    Snakebit's party must do everything possible to suppress voter numbers and turnout. Old, snowflake rural people are declining in numbers and being replaced by people with a more diverse values systems seeking more freedom, sustainable prosperity, and less bigotry. Florida, Arizona, Virginia are worth post 2018 mid-term analysis.
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  6. #56
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    67,609
    Quote Originally Posted by timeless View Post
    How would you react to the national popular vote movement where state are doing an end run around of the rules?
    I fully expect the gop party to find a way to fight that one with in a year of it going live because let's fact it facts speak for themselves gop has only won one of the last 6 popular votes and they were riding high on 9/11 from that one so who knows if they would of won it if 9/11 did not happen.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    As long as State reps cast their votes as their respective States mandate there is no end run. Follow the law and rules and live with the result. I know that last part is hard when your heart is broken.

  7. #57
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    67,609
    Quote Originally Posted by oldgulph View Post
    The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    Article II, Section 1
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
    I don't believe we will ever see a national popular vote law. Why would smaller States cut their own throats? After the electoral votes are in and counted the States with the most votes have already gotten the candidate they wanted.

  8. #58
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    I don't believe we will ever see a national popular vote law. Why would smaller States cut their own throats? After the electoral votes are in and counted the States with the most votes have already gotten the candidate they wanted.
    Umm as it stands most of those small states don't get any say.

    Unless the state is a battle ground swing state they get next to zero say.

    Texas voters as it stands gets zero say in president races. It will vote gop no matter what so zero attention is paid to it.

    In popular vote texas all of a sudden becomes interesting. We fan look at some of the small states they have some value because they are no longer red or blue but each vote matters.

    Face it snake your and my vote for president does not matter as we both live in Texas.
    Hell let's be completely honest our votes for any of our representatives in DC don't really matter as our senators will be gop and we both I bet live in a ultra safe red or blue district for congress so the general is a dog and pony show and our vote does not count.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  9. #59
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    67,609
    Quote Originally Posted by timeless View Post
    Umm as it stands most of those small states don't get any say.

    Unless the state is a battle ground swing state they get next to zero say.

    Texas voters as it stands gets zero say in president races. It will vote gop no matter what so zero attention is paid to it.

    In popular vote texas all of a sudden becomes interesting. We fan look at some of the small states they have some value because they are no longer red or blue but each vote matters.

    Face it snake your and my vote for president does not matter as we both live in Texas.
    Hell let's be completely honest our votes for any of our representatives in DC don't really matter as our senators will be gop and we both I bet live in a ultra safe red or blue district for congress so the general is a dog and pony show and our vote does not count.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    It's a red State because that's who most of us are. All our votes count, collectively.

  10. #60
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    It's a red State because that's who most of us are. All our votes count, collectively.
    As I said you like not having a vote for president. Snake the fact is your vote for Trump did not matter. It was worthless. You do not live in a swing state and as such you clearly like not having your vote matter for president.


    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  11. #61
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    67,609
    Quote Originally Posted by timeless View Post
    As I said you like not having a vote for president. Snake the fact is your vote for Trump did not matter. It was worthless. You do not live in a swing state and as such you clearly like not having your vote matter for president.


    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    He got elected didn't he? I hear it takes a village, well my village stuck together. Your vote is the one that didn't count,

  12. #62
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    He got elected didn't he? I hear it takes a village, well my village stuck together. Your vote is the one that didn't count,
    Do you live in a swing state? No
    Sorry your vote did not matter. But you can feel good thinking that you support a hateful racist lair.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  13. #63
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    67,609
    Quote Originally Posted by timeless View Post
    Do you live in a swing state? No
    Sorry your vote did not matter. But you can feel good thinking that you support a hateful racist lair.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    It mattered more than those three million Hillary votes that are so exasperating for the left.

  14. #64
    Pathlete and Pedalphile
    Reputation: redondoaveb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by timeless View Post
    Do you live in a swing state? No
    Sorry your vote did not matter. But you can feel good thinking that you support a hateful racist lair.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/u...ttesville.html
    If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

  15. #65
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    21,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    The people now holding office were elected by the people to make these decisions for them.
    Yes just like back in March 2016 when the people who got elected did wait until an election 8 months down the road before they ultimately voted on the SCOTUS nominee.

    Why the rush?

    Afraid Kav's got something to hide or perhaps afraid how American voters my vote?
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  16. #66
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    67,609
    Quote Originally Posted by troutmd View Post
    Yes just like back in March 2016 when the people who got elected did wait until an election 8 months down the road before they ultimately voted on the SCOTUS nominee.

    Why the rush?

    Afraid Kav's got something to hide or perhaps afraid how American voters my vote?
    Unless there has been a major change, it's the Senate that does the voting for SCOTUS, not you and I.

  17. #67
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    Unless there has been a major change, it's the Senate that does the voting for SCOTUS, not you and I.
    I think you are missing the point...[deleted by moderator].

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  18. #68
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    21,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    Unless there has been a major change, it's the Senate that does the voting for SCOTUS, not you and I.
    Not according to the Senate Majority leader.

    You've note heard ot the McConnell Rule or is this yet another inadvertent error or momentary failure of memory?
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  19. #69
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    67,609
    Quote Originally Posted by troutmd View Post
    Not according to the Senate Majority leader.

    You've note heard ot the McConnell Rule or is this yet another inadvertent error or momentary failure of memory?
    Enlighten me?

  20. #70
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by timeless View Post
    As I said you like not having a vote for president. Snake the fact is your vote for Trump did not matter. It was worthless. You do not live in a swing state and as such you clearly like not having your vote matter for president.


    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    That is absolutely not true. Even if the state is pretty much a given for one party or the other, the people still have to show up and vote.

    If all of the California Dems decided that their votes were a waste of time because they knew the state would go for the Dems anyway, and didn't get out and vote, the Reps could have a chance at the state if they had a strong turnout.

  21. #71
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    21,465
    Quote Originally Posted by davesupra View Post
    That is absolutely not true. Even if the state is pretty much a given for one party or the other, the people still have to show up and vote.

    If all of the California Dems decided that their votes were a waste of time because they knew the state would go for the Dems anyway, and didn't get out and vote, the Reps could have a chance at the state if they had a strong turnout.
    True.

    Given the dismal choices in the past election "None of The Above" might have;

    1. Won the election; and,

    2. Increased voter turnout.

    Remember - in March 2016 both Bernie and Yrump were campaigning on the very same issue - the system is rigged by special internet money & influence.
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  22. #72
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    21,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    Enlighten me?
    Impossible request noted.
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

  23. #73
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by troutmd View Post
    True.

    Given the dismal choices in the past election "None of The Above" might have;

    1. Won the election; and,

    2. Increased voter turnout.
    This may be true. lol

  24. #74
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    67,609
    Quote Originally Posted by troutmd View Post
    Impossible request noted.
    I didn't think you could.

  25. #75
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    21,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    I didn't think you could.
    Since when did you start thinking?
    I am 100% convinced the internet and social media are not the salvation to human civility.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. VOTING: NEVER say your vote doesn't count!
    By xxl in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-05-2015, 11:28 AM
  2. Vote, Vote, Vote
    By Brushout in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-02-2010, 03:20 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-23-2010, 09:44 AM
  4. Proof that the Iran vote count was manipulated?
    By mohair_chair in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 10:37 AM
  5. Can Bush count on the military vote in Nov?
    By spyderman in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 01:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest RoadBike Articles

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

roadbikereview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.