|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 04, 2020, 08:18:25 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  EC would be dismantled after GOP loss of TX and FL
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: EC would be dismantled after GOP loss of TX and FL  (Read 1433 times)
gottsu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 822
Poland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 20, 2020, 08:41:23 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.

Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2020, 09:08:26 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,149
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2020, 10:48:57 am »

I dunno. If the GOP starts losing TX, even narrow margins, there is no way a GOP candidate would come within striking distance to win the NPV, unless CA, NY and IL are trending red. Even if the Mid West, which loses population, largely goes GOP by modest margins. In this scenario, AZ, GA and NC will also vote blue.

There may have been a serious bipartisan attempt to end the EC if W lost the 2004 election by narrowly flipping OH to Kerry. W would still have won the PV under this scenario, and by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.
Logged
gottsu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 822
Poland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2020, 04:12:09 pm »
« Edited: January 20, 2020, 04:17:38 pm by gottsu »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.

You forgot to say that EC favours smaller states, and keeps them not to be overpowered by large ones in all of your Republican propaganda. Automatic voter registration (present in so many, many countries) would solve your Republican fears of election stealing and other controversies by the corrupt, dehumanized and ruthless Democrats.

I dunno. If the GOP starts losing TX, even narrow margins, there is no way a GOP candidate would come within striking distance to win the NPV, unless CA, NY and IL are trending red. Even if the Mid West, which loses population, largely goes GOP by modest margins. In this scenario, AZ, GA and NC will also vote blue.

There may have been a serious bipartisan attempt to end the EC if W lost the 2004 election by narrowly flipping OH to Kerry. W would still have won the PV under this scenario, and by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

Nevertheless, within next few good years, there will be a national debate on EC and the things will start to clarify. I uphold my view above that the loss of TX or/and FL will be a tipping point for Republicans to seriously talk about EC.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,169
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2020, 09:17:36 pm »

I dunno. If the GOP starts losing TX, even narrow margins, there is no way a GOP candidate would come within striking distance to win the NPV, unless CA, NY and IL are trending red. Even if the Mid West, which loses population, largely goes GOP by modest margins. In this scenario, AZ, GA and NC will also vote blue.

There may have been a serious bipartisan attempt to end the EC if W lost the 2004 election by narrowly flipping OH to Kerry. W would still have won the PV under this scenario, and by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

Probably the most plausible EC/PV split in favor of Dems would involve the Democrat winning Texas and Florida by a couple thousand votes each while Republicans are coming close in IL and over 60% throughout the rest of the Midwest.  Basically, Republicans would have to start winning the rural Midwest the way Democrats win NYC.

I do think this is more likely than not to happen sometime between now and 2050.  Of course, in such a setting, Republicans wouldn't have enough power to do away with the EC unless the Dems of that era also wanted it gone. 
Logged
kohler
Rookie
**
Posts: 103
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2020, 03:13:50 pm »

Now we need to urge state legislators, in states with the 74 more electoral votes needed, to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

The bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing 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.
   
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
         
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Logged
Hammy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,204
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2020, 10:21:53 pm »

No way the GOP opposes it unless they actually win the PV and lose the EC, it wont matter what states go D in the meantime if they're loosing the PV with it.
Logged
Forumlurker161
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,065


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2020, 08:03:16 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2020, 10:12:49 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.
Logged
Hammy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,204
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2020, 02:05:17 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.

I will address only the bold, as the rest of your post is complete fantasy rubbish to validate your own bias--The reason the electoral college exists is because most states were rural when the constitution was drafted, and only a few states even held popular vote. How do you give say to states that don't hold a vote? The electoral college made perfect sense at the time but was obsolete after reconstruction, and personally (despite being a hardcore neocon in 2000) have never support the EC for that reason.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2020, 11:01:15 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.

I will address only the bold, as the rest of your post is complete fantasy rubbish to validate your own bias--The reason the electoral college exists is because most states were rural when the constitution was drafted, and only a few states even held popular vote. How do you give say to states that don't hold a vote? The electoral college made perfect sense at the time but was obsolete after reconstruction, and personally (despite being a hardcore neocon in 2000) have never support the EC for that reason.

When you start your reply with an ad hominem argument, it takes away your credibility. You haven't done anything to try rebut my many points and perhaps I'm just wasting my time here.
Logged
MB
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,249
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2020, 02:27:56 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!
Logged
Anarcho-Statism
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 563
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 1.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2020, 09:25:18 am »

Doubtful, because even in that event, it's harder for the Republicans right now to win the popular vote than the electoral vote.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2020, 05:38:20 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.
Logged
MB
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,249
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2020, 07:21:37 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.
There needs to be a lot more oversight to make sure no actual voters are being taken off the rolls. And this has happened before. According to this if there's suspicion someone moved and they don't reply to a letter, they can be taken off the list. Not exactly a fair process.

Anyway of course misconduct can affect an election. But I don't exactly see why that's up for a debate.
Logged
jrk26
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2020, 11:43:31 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.

I will address only the bold, as the rest of your post is complete fantasy rubbish to validate your own bias--The reason the electoral college exists is because most states were rural when the constitution was drafted, and only a few states even held popular vote. How do you give say to states that don't hold a vote? The electoral college made perfect sense at the time but was obsolete after reconstruction, and personally (despite being a hardcore neocon in 2000) have never support the EC for that reason.

When you start your reply with an ad hominem argument, it takes away your credibility. You haven't done anything to try rebut my many points and perhaps I'm just wasting my time here.

Yeah, you are probably just wasting your time.  You should probably just leave.
Logged
jrk26
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2020, 11:44:20 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.

You're an idiot.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2020, 12:05:39 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.
There needs to be a lot more oversight to make sure no actual voters are being taken off the rolls. And this has happened before. According to this if there's suspicion someone moved and they don't reply to a letter, they can be taken off the list. Not exactly a fair process.

Anyway of course misconduct can affect an election. But I don't exactly see why that's up for a debate.

If they get taken off of the roll after they failed to reply to a letter that's their own fault. What's your point?
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2020, 12:07:08 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.

You're an idiot.

That's a great argument; totally changed my mind.
Logged
MB
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,249
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2020, 01:01:15 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.
There needs to be a lot more oversight to make sure no actual voters are being taken off the rolls. And this has happened before. According to this if there's suspicion someone moved and they don't reply to a letter, they can be taken off the list. Not exactly a fair process.

Anyway of course misconduct can affect an election. But I don't exactly see why that's up for a debate.

If they get taken off of the roll after they failed to reply to a letter that's their own fault. What's your point?
That once you're registered you should stay registered unless you die or move out of state?
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2020, 01:13:14 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.
There needs to be a lot more oversight to make sure no actual voters are being taken off the rolls. And this has happened before. According to this if there's suspicion someone moved and they don't reply to a letter, they can be taken off the list. Not exactly a fair process.

Anyway of course misconduct can affect an election. But I don't exactly see why that's up for a debate.

If they get taken off of the roll after they failed to reply to a letter that's their own fault. What's your point?
That once you're registered you should stay registered unless you die or move out of state?

Well, I think the letter would be to check on them to find out whether or not they died or left; seems like a good idea. Regardless, it's their own fault that they didn't respond to the letter. People have to be responsible.
Logged
MB
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,249
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2020, 01:17:12 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.
There needs to be a lot more oversight to make sure no actual voters are being taken off the rolls. And this has happened before. According to this if there's suspicion someone moved and they don't reply to a letter, they can be taken off the list. Not exactly a fair process.

Anyway of course misconduct can affect an election. But I don't exactly see why that's up for a debate.

If they get taken off of the roll after they failed to reply to a letter that's their own fault. What's your point?
That once you're registered you should stay registered unless you die or move out of state?

Well, I think the letter would be to check on them to find out whether or not they died or left; seems like a good idea. Regardless, it's their own fault that they didn't respond to the letter. People have to be responsible.
There's gotta be a better and more efficient way to do it. Maybe...looking at death certificates or house sale/rental records or something?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,221
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2020, 08:32:06 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.

Absolutely wrong.  The Founders certainly did not envisage the winner-take-all partisan manner in which the electors have been largely chosen.  The reason for the Electoral College is two-fold.  First, in the context of 1787, they deemed it impossible for most of the electorate to know anything significant about most potential presidential candidates, so they wanted the voters (either directly as was specified for Representatives or indirectly via the State legislatures as was specified for Senators) to select people they knew and trusted to be the Electors. Second, while they could've done like many States did at the time and had the legislature select the executive, to emphasize separation of powers they chose to instead create a one-time special purpose legislature entirely separate from Congress (which is why members of Congress are barred from being Electors) for the sole purpose of electing the executive. The only reason Congress has any role at all is because the College does not meet all together due to the hardship then of forcing them to travel to the national capital to perform only one task, so some means had to be devised when the Electors, all meeting in their own States, fail to select the executive themselves.

Given the ease of travel today, if we wanted to update the Electoral College yet stay true to the Founders' intention, we'd have them all meet in Washington and have them deliberate until habemus presidentum. Perhaps even send up smoke signals from the Capitol dome. We might even have them reconvene whenever there is a vacancy in the executive branch.
Logged
jrk26
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2020, 03:31:07 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.

You're an idiot.

That's a great argument; totally changed my mind.

The fact that you're either unaware of or are blatantly ignoring systemic voter suppression via taking people off the voter roles (looking at you, Brian Kemp) does in fact make you an idiot.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2020, 09:55:12 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.

You're an idiot.

That's a great argument; totally changed my mind.

The fact that you're either unaware of or are blatantly ignoring systemic voter suppression via taking people off the voter roles (looking at you, Brian Kemp) does in fact make you an idiot.

Taking dead people off the rolls is not voter suppression. Try again.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines