• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Movement to override the electoral college advancing, moving toward 209/270 votes

One effect is that any location or any state could steal the election, when now only a state can be stolen. Clearly, most Democratic politicians believe the only way they can secure the presidency is if they have the ability to steal the entire election nationwide, not just statewide.

This is another reason Trump must get re-elected. If the Democrats get control of the Supreme Court you can figure the Constitution and Bill Of Rights are gone. They will make up their own.
 
Bullseye said:
It could end up being found unconstitutional. What if a state votes overwhelming for one party but the other wins popular vote = doesn't that disenfranchise all those voters?
Click to expand...

Then the voters will vote people into office to repeal that legislation.
 
Nap said:
And? That has absolutely nothing to do with this. If we had a popular vote system and they lost then they would be whining about how we need an electoral system.
Click to expand...

That has absolutely everything to do with it. That's the topic: giving the popular vote the power it needs to elect the president.
 
joko104 said:
One effect is that any location or any state could steal the election, when now only a state can be stolen. Clearly, most Democratic politicians believe the only way they can secure the presidency is if they have the ability to steal the entire election nationwide, not just statewide.

This is another reason Trump must get re-elected. If the Democrats get control of the Supreme Court you can figure the Constitution and Bill Of Rights are gone. They will make up their own.
Click to expand...

Welcome to America, the Left has been at this for quite awhile.
 
Diesel said:
That has absolutely everything to do with it. That's the topic: giving the popular vote the power it needs to elect the president.
Click to expand...

You are a fool if you believe Democrats want this out of any sort of principled stand. This is them just throwing a tantrum because they lost and don't want to moderate their positions to get elected.
 
Diesel said:
Actually, five presidents have lost the popular vote. Trump is just the most recent of them.
Click to expand...

A popular vote only has relevance on the State level. President Trump didn't lose those relevant popular votes.
 
Nap said:
You are a fool if you believe Democrats want this out of any sort of principled stand. This is them just throwing a tantrum because they lost and don't want to moderate their positions to get elected.
Click to expand...

Ok. I don't particularly care what spin you put on it. The practical effect of the compact is to elect the person who wins the popular vote.
 
Excon said:
A popular vote only has relevance on the State level. President Trump didn't lose those relevant popular votes.
Click to expand...

That's the current system. The compact seeks to change that system in such a way that the national popular vote could override states' popular votes.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Yeah, I've seen those arguments. I don't think they'll hold up against the plain text of the Constitution.

But who knows.
Click to expand...

No one does. That apparently doesn't stop people from taking stands as if they're the deciding vote on the Supreme Court though.
 
Diesel said:
Ok. I don't particularly care what spin you put on it. The practical effect of the compact is to elect the person who wins the popular vote.
Click to expand...

I understand that and never said that wasn't the case. I am merely saying that this is a childish and petty effort by the DNC to change the rules because they feel that without moderating their views it puts them at a disadvantage. If they were able to switch it to the popular vote they would then cry we need the EC back the moment they lost another election.
 
Diesel said:
It would be an interesting case.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would be that interesting. The Voting rights act requires that votes count. If say Virginia went red and the national popular vote went blue and Virginia cast its electors blue instead of red, they would have a major violation of the VRA because they would have disenfranchised the majority of its voters. It is just a matter of having to wait until then to have standing, ripeness, etc to check all the court technical boxes to get to the merit of the case. Of course it would be interesting as hell if it went the other way and say the blue state were bound to cast their electors red because of that deal as then I would expect them all to bolt from the deal.
 
Diesel said:
That's the current system. The compact seeks to change that system in such a way that the national popular vote could override states' popular votes.
Click to expand...
I am aware of what the compact seeks to do and that it will likely be found unconstitutional, which is all irrelevant to the point I made.
 
Nap said:
I understand that and never said that wasn't the case. I am merely saying that this is a childish and petty effort by the DNC to change the rules because they feel that without moderating their views it puts them at a disadvantage. If they were able to switch it to the popular vote they would then cry we need the EC back the moment they lost another election.
Click to expand...

You already said that. I really don't care nor is it particularly relevant. Whatever the motives behind the legislation, the intent is to tie the presidency to the national popular vote.
 
Drawdown said:
I doubt it would be that interesting. The Voting rights act requires that votes count. If say Virginia went red and the national popular vote went blue and Virginia cast its electors blue instead of red, they would have a major violation of the VRA because they would have disenfranchised the majority of its voters. It is just a matter of having to wait until then to have standing, ripeness, etc to check all the court technical boxes to get to the merit of the case. Of course it would be interesting as hell if it went the other way and say the blue state were bound to cast their electors red because of that deal as then I would expect them all to bolt from the deal.
Click to expand...

That cuts both ways. If votes are supposed to count, then the three million more people who voted for Clinton, for example, were disenfranchised by the Trump presidency. It would be a very interesting case to me because there are credible arguments for both sides.
 
Excon said:
I am aware of what the compact seeks to do and that it will likely be found unconstitutional, which is all irrelevant to the point I made.
Click to expand...

It isn't irrelevant. You said only popular votes at the state level are relevant. That's only true if the compact doesn't take effect. There's no constitutional requirement for that, which means it can be changed, theoretically.
 
HumblePi said:
Finally, a state that has some sense of right and wrong. I wish it became national but it's unlikely since that's the only way republicans have been able to win.
Click to expand...

Hopefully we won't need them. We just need half the electoral votes worth of states, which I think is as low as around the ten biggest states.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Eh, I think everyone is entitled to their narrative. Opinions are like assholes, we've all got'em.
Click to expand...

For sure. I still roll my eyes when random people take positions on undetermined considerations as if they're definitive. Those people do not quite get what an opinion is and what topics are subject to opinion.
 
Diesel said:
It isn't irrelevant. You said only popular votes at the state level are relevant. That's only true if the compact doesn't take effect. There's no constitutional requirement for that, which means it can be changed, theoretically.
Click to expand...
Are you purposely having trouble following?

This is what you said and my reply.

Excon said:
Diesel said:
Actually, five presidents have lost the popular vote. Trump is just the most recent of them.
Click to expand...
A popular vote only has relevance on the State level. President Trump didn't lose those relevant popular votes.
Click to expand...


I spoke of what currently is, in relation to your commentary, not of some possible change under the proposed compact.
So no, a national popular vote total currently has no relevance to the election of the President, and President Trump won the only popular votes that currently matter.
 
Craig234 said:
Virginia's House has passed the measure where, if states with 270 electoral votes, enough to elect the president, pass the measure, the electoral college will be overridden. Good news for democracy, but we need those last 61 electoral votes.

Virginia House passes bill to give electoral votes to popular vote winner - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

VA does not shock me. Since it borders a super Democrat managed Government, in DC (at least they hope they are) the State of VA is moving to bigotry at a breathtaking pace.
 
Excon said:
Are you purposely having trouble following?

This is what you said and my reply.

​


I spoke of what currently is, in relation to your commentary, not of some possible change under the proposed compact.
So no, a national popular vote total currently has no relevance to the election of the President, and President Trump won the only popular votes that currently matter.
Click to expand...

I'm not having trouble following anything. You're not understanding that I'm telling you that your comment is as informative as saying that the sky is dark when the sun's not out.
 
Diesel said:
I'm not having trouble following anything. You're not understanding that I'm telling you that your comment is as informative as saying that the sky is dark when the sun's not out.
Click to expand...
And thus establishing how you are wrong. That is what I relayed to you by pointing out the irrelevancy of your comment.
Again.
Excon said:
Diesel said:
Actually, five presidents have lost the popular vote. Trump is just the most recent of them.
Click to expand...
A popular vote only has relevance on the State level. President Trump didn't lose those relevant popular votes.
Click to expand...
 
Excon said:
And thus establishing how you are wrong. That is what I relayed to you by pointing out the irrelevancy of your comment.
Again.
​
Click to expand...

I was never wrong about anything in this thread. Chill out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom