Nevada set to join NPVIC (UPDATE: vetoed by idiot governor)

[emailking]

Your first statement contradicts what you say later.   100K votes decided the election in 2004,  while the popular vote was decided by over 3 million.  Bush's national margin was 2.4% while in Ohio it was 2.11%.   

The electoral college has a much, much higher probability to produce a razor thin result in one state that determines the entire election than the popular vote will.  

I don't see a contradiction in what I said. Flipping 100K votes in Ohio is presumably easier as a targeted operation than flipping 3 million votes nationally.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

[Inmate Trump]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

They would say that doesn't make sense, but keeping it as a system for presidential elections makes perfect sense to them.

There is no debating with that crowd, no matter how much logic you use or how well thought out your arguments.

The reason is because they realize, deep down, that they cannot win elections based on the will of the people and the only way they can win elections is through technicality (the electoral college), voter fraud, or otherwise cheating.

[Hollywood]

Sad, we should keep the Electoral College, to make sure that smaller states, have a say

The states have a say. They have a say exactly equivalent to their population just like any other state. That is a fake argument.

In fact, it's not even a fake argument, it's a factually incorrect one. It's a little too another post, because only small states that have any say in an election are New Hampshire Nevada, and Iowa. Every other small state in the country votes there don't count.

Well if you say it’s a fake argument then I guess it must have no merit.  I suppose you also agree that the Senate should be commensurate with population size, because we should just surrender all branches of government to the majority.  No protection for the states with a minority of the population.  We can also dispense with the Supreme Court, because why should nine people decide the law.  It’s not like the Supreme Court protects the right of minorities.  Fake argument.  The UN?  Should be ruled by the governments of Brazil, Russia, China and India, because who better understands the needs of U.S. citizens than the dense populations in foreign countries.  Four countries determining the fate of every other nation, power vesting to the countries with populations that would rather have a natural feel instead of artificiality of condom. 

You’re argument about only a few small states having say in an election is illogical.  If Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada are the only states that have say in an election, why completely take the voice away from other small states that wish to preserve their governing authority through the electoral college.  Why take away their small amount of power? 

Why should state borders have any role in a national election?  Why are voters in Wyoming given this supposed “power” but not voters in Siskiyou CA?  Why not just treat them equally?

One is a state and one is a town.  That was easy.  We treat each state equally.  If California wants to become overpopulated and Wyoming wants to retain it's rural atmosphere, then both states have the right to do so without penalty.  States have their own government that can fulfill the needs of people in it's cities.  Electoral procedures for Federal government have unique procedures based on the framers.  Leftists argue that states in the UN should be treated in this manner, because this is fair to for each state/country.  To treat Siskiyou, CA as if it is equal to a state would undermine statehood. 

[Hollywood]

Sad, we should keep the Electoral College, to make sure that smaller states, have a say

The states have a say. They have a say exactly equivalent to their population just like any other state. That is a fake argument.

In fact, it's not even a fake argument, it's a factually incorrect one. It's a little too another post, because only small states that have any say in an election are New Hampshire Nevada, and Iowa. Every other small state in the country votes there don't count.

~[nonsensical rambling]~

You’re *Your argument about only a few small states having say in an election is illogical.  If Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada are the only states that have say in an election, why completely take the voice away from other small states that wish to preserve their governing authority through the electoral college.  Why take away their small amount of power? 

Great point!  The presidential primaries system obviously needs a complete overhaul as well.  It makes absolutely no sense for the same handful of small states to effectively decide the party nominees each time.

But that has nothing to do with the electoral college, and as such, is a separate problem to fix.

I'm just going to bypass your passive aggressive compliment, and proclaim that anyone that takes the time to grammar check someone on a forum is an obvious and admitted POS with too much time on their hands.  I will also admit that anyone stating that they are making a proclamation is also an obvious and admitted POS.   I would ask you not to edit my post in the future, because it was all great.  Please stop destroying American culture with this anti-constitutional agenda you Democrats seem to be on.  I guess it's too late.  When you hold ceremonies for traitors on the white house lawn, is you're party even really American anymore? 

[Hollywood]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

They would say that doesn't make sense, but keeping it as a system for presidential elections makes perfect sense to them.

There is no debating with that crowd, no matter how much logic you use or how well thought out your arguments.

The reason is because they realize, deep down, that they cannot win elections based on the will of the people and the only way they can win elections is through technicality (the electoral college), voter fraud, or otherwise cheating.

Having a multitude of different election procedures for various offices throughout government is a pretty logical way to ensure certain groups of people do not gain absolute power over our system.  Both systems have their merits, but Democrats are blind to logic.  Honestly, if you can't see the logical arguments underpinning this American tradition, procedure and culture, then you probably shouldn't be considered competent to vote. 

[Cashew]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

They would say that doesn't make sense, but keeping it as a system for presidential elections makes perfect sense to them.

There is no debating with that crowd, no matter how much logic you use or how well thought out your arguments.

The reason is because they realize, deep down, that they cannot win elections based on the will of the people and the only way they can win elections is through technicality (the electoral college), voter fraud, or otherwise cheating.

Having a multitude of different election procedures for various offices throughout government is a pretty logical way to ensure certain groups of people do not gain absolute power over our system.  Both systems have their merits, but Democrats are blind to logic.  Honestly, if you can't see the logical arguments underpinning this American tradition, procedure and culture, then you probably shouldn't be considered competent to vote.  

It's extremely disingenuous to call this an "American tradition" or "based on the framers" when bound electors and winner take all were not how the electoral college was intended to function. Honestly if the only arguments you guys can come up with are "tradition" and "small states" neither one of which you bothered to research for accuracy you shouldn't be considered competent enough to vote.

[Hollywood]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

They would say that doesn't make sense, but keeping it as a system for presidential elections makes perfect sense to them.

There is no debating with that crowd, no matter how much logic you use or how well thought out your arguments.

The reason is because they realize, deep down, that they cannot win elections based on the will of the people and the only way they can win elections is through technicality (the electoral college), voter fraud, or otherwise cheating.

Having a multitude of different election procedures for various offices throughout government is a pretty logical way to ensure certain groups of people do not gain absolute power over our system.  Both systems have their merits, but Democrats are blind to logic.  Honestly, if you can't see the logical arguments underpinning this American tradition, procedure and culture, then you probably shouldn't be considered competent to vote.  

It's extremely disingenuous to call this an "American tradition" or "based on the framers" when bound electors and winner take all were not how the electoral college was intended to function. Honestly if the only arguments you guys can come up with are "tradition" and "small states" neither one of which you bothered to research for accuracy you shouldn't be considered competent enough to vote.

It is actually very accurate and it wasn't my only argument.  The electoral college was meant to prevent a direct popular vote.  Framers were worried that sparsely populated states would be ruled by heavily populated states like Massachussetts and New York.  You really should learn some history before you open your mouth.  Just like a Democrat to act a fool.   

[emailking]

The electoral college was meant to prevent a direct popular vote.  Framers were worried that sparsely populated states would be ruled by heavily populated states like Massachussetts and New York.  

Yes, but what he said was also correct. The electoral college was not intended to function the way it does now, with pledged/bound electors and a winner take all format. It's allowed under the rules, but it has morphed into something that is vastly different from what the framers wanted. It was supposed to be a deliberative body.

[Cashew]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

They would say that doesn't make sense, but keeping it as a system for presidential elections makes perfect sense to them.

There is no debating with that crowd, no matter how much logic you use or how well thought out your arguments.

The reason is because they realize, deep down, that they cannot win elections based on the will of the people and the only way they can win elections is through technicality (the electoral college), voter fraud, or otherwise cheating.

Having a multitude of different election procedures for various offices throughout government is a pretty logical way to ensure certain groups of people do not gain absolute power over our system.  Both systems have their merits, but Democrats are blind to logic.  Honestly, if you can't see the logical arguments underpinning this American tradition, procedure and culture, then you probably shouldn't be considered competent to vote.  

It's extremely disingenuous to call this an "American tradition" or "based on the framers" when bound electors and winner take all were not how the electoral college was intended to function. Honestly if the only arguments you guys can come up with are "tradition" and "small states" neither one of which you bothered to research for accuracy you shouldn't be considered competent enough to vote.

It is actually very accurate and it wasn't my only argument.  The electoral college was meant to prevent a direct popular vote.  Framers were worried that sparsely populated states would be ruled by heavily populated states like Massachussetts and New York.  You really should learn some history before you open your mouth.  Just like a Democrat to act a fool.    

I never claimed that the founder wanted a popular vote, I said that the electoral college is not functioning as it was intended, something that you could have learned if you spend as little as five minutes skimming Wikipedia. That you couldn't figure that out means that you are either discussing in bad faith, or you are too doltish to engage in meaningful political discussion. Either way you should really take the time to read some history if you want to avoid further beclowning yourself, but then again common sense or honesty is too much to expect from you.

[Joe Republic]

The Founders also believed that black people were property.

[Nyvin]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

They would say that doesn't make sense, but keeping it as a system for presidential elections makes perfect sense to them.

There is no debating with that crowd, no matter how much logic you use or how well thought out your arguments.

The reason is because they realize, deep down, that they cannot win elections based on the will of the people and the only way they can win elections is through technicality (the electoral college), voter fraud, or otherwise cheating.

Having a multitude of different election procedures for various offices throughout government is a pretty logical way to ensure certain groups of people do not gain absolute power over our system.  Both systems have their merits, but Democrats are blind to logic.  Honestly, if you can't see the logical arguments underpinning this American tradition, procedure and culture, then you probably shouldn't be considered competent to vote.  

It's extremely disingenuous to call this an "American tradition" or "based on the framers" when bound electors and winner take all were not how the electoral college was intended to function. Honestly if the only arguments you guys can come up with are "tradition" and "small states" neither one of which you bothered to research for accuracy you shouldn't be considered competent enough to vote.

It is actually very accurate and it wasn't my only argument.  The electoral college was meant to prevent a direct popular vote.  Framers were worried that sparsely populated states would be ruled by heavily populated states like Massachussetts and New York.  You really should learn some history before you open your mouth.  Just like a Democrat to act a fool.    

The electoral college was installed to protect slavery in the South,  since the northern states outnumbered them in sheer population.

[DrScholl]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

They would say that doesn't make sense, but keeping it as a system for presidential elections makes perfect sense to them.

There is no debating with that crowd, no matter how much logic you use or how well thought out your arguments.

The reason is because they realize, deep down, that they cannot win elections based on the will of the people and the only way they can win elections is through technicality (the electoral college), voter fraud, or otherwise cheating.

Having a multitude of different election procedures for various offices throughout government is a pretty logical way to ensure certain groups of people do not gain absolute power over our system.  Both systems have their merits, but Democrats are blind to logic.  Honestly, if you can't see the logical arguments underpinning this American tradition, procedure and culture, then you probably shouldn't be considered competent to vote.  

It's extremely disingenuous to call this an "American tradition" or "based on the framers" when bound electors and winner take all were not how the electoral college was intended to function. Honestly if the only arguments you guys can come up with are "tradition" and "small states" neither one of which you bothered to research for accuracy you shouldn't be considered competent enough to vote.

It is actually very accurate and it wasn't my only argument.  The electoral college was meant to prevent a direct popular vote.  Framers were worried that sparsely populated states would be ruled by heavily populated states like Massachussetts and New York.  You really should learn some history before you open your mouth.  Just like a Democrat to act a fool.    

It is an archaic system. The founders have been dead for over 200 years so it's safe to say that much of what they believed in is no longer a good fit for the country. It is a major problem when someone can get elected President when the majority of the country did not vote for them, because this is one country after all.

If the situation was reversed and a Republican won the popular vote, but the Democrat won the electoral college there would be no way that result would be accepted by conservatives. They'd sign on to the NPVIC immediately.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

reminder that John Kerry was very close to winning the EV while being blown out in the PV

Funny enough, the electoral college favored Democrats in 3 of the last 5 elections. It just so happened that it made the difference in the other 2.

[cvparty]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

#allcountiesmatter

[7,052,770]

So if you support the Electoral College, why does Hillary even get Illinois's Electoral Votes?

I allocated Electoral Votes to each Illinois county based on population, where all counties are guaranteed at least 3. I used 538, although any number is fine and doesn't change the final outcome. Even though Hillary gets 122 EVs from Cook County, Trump wins 301-237.

It's literally impossible argue that a National Popular Vote is detrimental to rural interests but then be totally fine with state's electoral votes not also being chosen by such a system. Why don't you demand that rural Illinois farmers be able to overrule higher population Chicago and give Illinois's votes to Trump?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

#allcountiesmatter

Pretty sure I made such a case before, maybe not on this forum.

Also, additionally, if only the Dem states pass these "guidelines" then only the Dem states will go the way they always have...unless there's a rare Republican pop vote win, then they are screwed either by having to vote for the Republican or go back on their policy and pulling back the curtain.

Heavy Republican/largely rural states will not pass these "guidelines" for obvious reasons either way. 
So you have states hamstrung into voting for the popular vote winner and some voting the old way with their state's popular vote or possible faithless electors. 

This is going to just give Republican states more flexibility in deciding the elections. Congratulations, you've owned yourselves Dems.
 

[Sestak]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

#allcountiesmatter

Pretty sure I made such a case before, maybe not on this forum.

Also, additionally, if only the Dem states pass these "guidelines" then only the Dem states will go the way they always have...unless there's a rare Republican pop vote win, then they are screwed either by having to vote for the Republican or go back on their policy and pulling back the curtain.

Heavy Republican/largely rural states will not pass these "guidelines" for obvious reasons either way. 
So you have states hamstrung into voting for the popular vote winner and some voting the old way with their state's popular vote or possible faithless electors. 

This is going to just give Republican states more flexibility in deciding the elections. Congratulations, you've owned yourselves Dems.
 

Do you even bother reading about or looking into something before making an idiotic post about it?

States that join the NPVIC do so on the condition that they’ll only start to operate under it once enough states for 270 EVs have also signed. So if not enough states have joined it, they’ll vote as they currently do.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

#allcountiesmatter

Pretty sure I made such a case before, maybe not on this forum.

Also, additionally, if only the Dem states pass these "guidelines" then only the Dem states will go the way they always have...unless there's a rare Republican pop vote win, then they are screwed either by having to vote for the Republican or go back on their policy and pulling back the curtain.

Heavy Republican/largely rural states will not pass these "guidelines" for obvious reasons either way. 
So you have states hamstrung into voting for the popular vote winner and some voting the old way with their state's popular vote or possible faithless electors. 

This is going to just give Republican states more flexibility in deciding the elections. Congratulations, you've owned yourselves Dems.
 

Do you even bother reading about or looking into something before making an idiotic post about it?

States that join the NPVIC do so on the condition that they’ll only start to operate under it once enough states for 270 EVs have also signed. So if not enough states have joined it, they’ll vote as they currently do.

Well good luck getting there, and doesn't moot my point about it backfiring if the Republican gets the popular vote.

[QAnonKelly]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

#allcountiesmatter

Pretty sure I made such a case before, maybe not on this forum.

Also, additionally, if only the Dem states pass these "guidelines" then only the Dem states will go the way they always have...unless there's a rare Republican pop vote win, then they are screwed either by having to vote for the Republican or go back on their policy and pulling back the curtain.

Heavy Republican/largely rural states will not pass these "guidelines" for obvious reasons either way. 
So you have states hamstrung into voting for the popular vote winner and some voting the old way with their state's popular vote or possible faithless electors. 

This is going to just give Republican states more flexibility in deciding the elections. Congratulations, you've owned yourselves Dems.
 

Do you even bother reading about or looking into something before making an idiotic post about it?

States that join the NPVIC do so on the condition that they’ll only start to operate under it once enough states for 270 EVs have also signed. So if not enough states have joined it, they’ll vote as they currently do.

Well good luck getting there, and doesn't moot my point about it backfiring if the Republican gets the popular vote.

If a Republican wins they popular vote, a Republican deserves to be the president hands down. That’s the whole point of doing away with the EC.

[Sestak]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

#allcountiesmatter

Pretty sure I made such a case before, maybe not on this forum.

Also, additionally, if only the Dem states pass these "guidelines" then only the Dem states will go the way they always have...unless there's a rare Republican pop vote win, then they are screwed either by having to vote for the Republican or go back on their policy and pulling back the curtain.

Heavy Republican/largely rural states will not pass these "guidelines" for obvious reasons either way. 
So you have states hamstrung into voting for the popular vote winner and some voting the old way with their state's popular vote or possible faithless electors. 

This is going to just give Republican states more flexibility in deciding the elections. Congratulations, you've owned yourselves Dems.
 

Do you even bother reading about or looking into something before making an idiotic post about it?

States that join the NPVIC do so on the condition that they’ll only start to operate under it once enough states for 270 EVs have also signed. So if not enough states have joined it, they’ll vote as they currently do.

Well good luck getting there, and doesn't moot my point about it backfiring if the Republican gets the popular vote.

It’s only a “backfire” if you assume that the goal is to get Democrats elected and not, you know, actually use the PV to decide the election winner?

[DrScholl]

If a Republican gets the popular vote it's not likely a Democrat will have likely secured enough votes to win the electoral college that would be rendered moot under the NPVIC.

Now if a Republican actually did win the popular vote and lose the electoral college under the current system you'd see several of these small states signing on to the NPVIC in the days following the election.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

If a Republican gets the popular vote it's not likely a Democrat will have likely secured enough votes to win the electoral college that would be rendered moot under the NPVIC.

Now if a Republican actually did win the popular vote and lose the electoral college under the current system you'd see several of these small states signing on to the NPVIC in the days following the election.

And you just proved why this idea is stupid.  It's all about "my side winning" and not anything else.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Weird how nobody ever proposes introducing an electoral college for governor elections if it’s such a great system.

#allcountiesmatter

Pretty sure I made such a case before, maybe not on this forum.

Also, additionally, if only the Dem states pass these "guidelines" then only the Dem states will go the way they always have...unless there's a rare Republican pop vote win, then they are screwed either by having to vote for the Republican or go back on their policy and pulling back the curtain.

Heavy Republican/largely rural states will not pass these "guidelines" for obvious reasons either way. 
So you have states hamstrung into voting for the popular vote winner and some voting the old way with their state's popular vote or possible faithless electors. 

This is going to just give Republican states more flexibility in deciding the elections. Congratulations, you've owned yourselves Dems.
 

Do you even bother reading about or looking into something before making an idiotic post about it?

States that join the NPVIC do so on the condition that they’ll only start to operate under it once enough states for 270 EVs have also signed. So if not enough states have joined it, they’ll vote as they currently do.

Well good luck getting there, and doesn't moot my point about it backfiring if the Republican gets the popular vote.

It’s only a “backfire” if you assume that the goal is to get Democrats elected and not, you know, actually use the PV to decide the election winner?

Don't pretend that's not the point of all this.

[Joe Republic]

Why do so many idiots truly not grasp how this very simple system works?

It's like trying to play tic tac toe with somebody that insists we play according to the combined rules of chess, checkers and Yahtzee, and when you explain the rules of tic tac toe to them their brain melts.