Virginia House passes bill to give electoral votes to popular vote winner

[Novaheart]

For one thing, everyone in those states who didn't vote for that state's winner has their vote essentially erased. If the state goes 51-49%, it's electoral votes go 100-0%. If you're in a safe state, you may as well not even vote.

Also, you were very clear that the founders didn't want a majority of population to make the selection but a majority of states. And when I point out that 12 states is enough, you're like, well that's a majority of the population, so fine. You're too dumb to see how you're contradicting your own argument.

That's called losing. You don't like the rules. Got it. It would be a bit much to claim that the Founding Fathers ever intended to allow California to effectively cancel the combined popular votes of six original states.

[Novaheart]

That's a plurality, not a majority.

In English:

ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: majority; plural noun: majorities
1.
the greater number.

plu·ral·i·ty
/plo͝oˈralədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: plurality; plural noun: pluralities
1.
the fact or state of being plural.
"some languages add an extra syllable to mark plurality"
a large number of people or things.
"a plurality of critical approaches"

I win.

[80zephyr]

For one thing, everyone in those states who didn't vote for that state's winner has their vote essentially erased. If the state goes 51-49%, it's electoral votes go 100-0%. If you're in a safe state, you may as well not even vote.

Also, you were very clear that the founders didn't want a majority of population to make the selection but a majority of states. And when I point out that 12 states is enough, you're like, well that's a majority of the population, so fine. You're too dumb to see how you're contradicting your own argument.

In our history, I believe the president won less popular votes than the loser. 4 times. And they set it up the way they did to make sure the minority has a voice.

Can that voice be erased? Sure, but its harder. And no, the voters in any state do not have their vote erased. The state votes with the majority. If its erased its because everyone who votes for the loser essentially has their vote erased. A safe state today might not be one tomorrow. Landslide elections prove that.

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

http://www.notpolitical.info/forums/showthread.php?14251-Virginia-House-passes-bill-to-give-electoral-votes-to-popular-vote-winner&p=198902#post198902

In English:

ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: majority; plural noun: majorities
1.
the greater number.

plu·ral·i·ty
/plo͝oˈralədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: plurality; plural noun: pluralities
1.
the fact or state of being plural.
"some languages add an extra syllable to mark plurality"
a large number of people or things.
"a plurality of critical approaches"

I win.

Okay, doofus.

[Norm dePlume]

In our history, I believe the president won less popular votes than the loser. 4 times. And they set it up the way they did to make sure the minority has a voice.

Can that voice be erased? Sure, but its harder. And no, the voters in any state do not have their vote erased. The state votes with the majority. If its erased its because everyone who votes for the loser essentially has their vote erased. A safe state today might not be one tomorrow. Landslide elections prove that.

Mark

If you're gonna talk about what the founders set up, then there shouldn't even be a presidential candidate on your ballot. You should have some local guys' names on your ballot, so you can vote for who you think is smart enough to go and choose the president. You would vote for an elector, not a president. And which presidential candidate the electors vote for would be entirely up to them.

[Norm dePlume]

That's called losing. You don't like the rules. Got it. It would be a bit much to claim that the Founding Fathers ever intended to allow California to effectively cancel the combined popular votes of six original states.

In 2016, the popular vote in California went 61.7% for Clinton and 31.6% for Trump. What does that do to your simplistic calculations?

[80zephyr]

Lest we forget after all the spin. This isn't unclear, and it's not ambiguous. It's just wrong.

No, its not. The state votes are weighted, thats true, but its still the states that elect the president.

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

No, its not. The state votes are weighted, thats true, but its still the states that elect the president.

Mark

Okay, doofus.

[Newman]

In 2016, the popular vote in California went 61.7% for Clinton and 31.6% for Trump. What does that do to your simplistic calculations?

Behind all this fuss and feathers, what is your concern?

That the interstate pact is a good and legal thing?

That a pure democracy is preferable to the republic we have?

[80zephyr]

If you're gonna talk about what the founders set up, then there shouldn't even be a presidential candidate on your ballot. You should have some local guys' names on your ballot, so you can vote for who you think is smart enough to go and choose the president. You would vote for an elector, not a president. And which presidential candidate the electors vote for would be entirely up to them.

I really don't know why this is so hard to understand. The voters vote for a candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins the state. And the state representatives "vote" for what the voters decided.

Mark

[80zephyr]

Okay, doofus.

You know Norm, I understand your frustration. But, simply calling me names isn't going to work. Not with me. Oh, I can be very good at retaliation, but I don't like doing it.

But, if you insist...

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

Behind all this fuss and feathers, what is your concern?

That the interstate pact is a good and legal thing?

That a pure democracy is preferable to the republic we have?

I'd like to see it discussed without the bullshit. Claiming presidents are elected by a majority of states is wrong. Once it's pointed out that this is wrong, if you continue to stick to that claim, it's a lie. Either way, it's bullshit.

Claiming the compact is unconstitutional is bullshit.

Claiming that electing a government official by a majority of voters amounts to "mob rule" is bullshit.

Claiming that the interstate compact would disenfranchise voters is bullshit.

You want a nice discussion, try dropping all the bullshit.

[Norm dePlume]

Behind all this fuss and feathers, what is your concern?

That the interstate pact is a good and legal thing?

That a pure democracy is preferable to the republic we have?

Claiming that presidential election by majority vote is "pure democracy" is bullshit.

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly.

[Norm dePlume]

You know Norm, I understand your frustration. But, simply calling me names isn't going to work. Not with me. Oh, I can be very good at retaliation, but I don't like doing it.

But, if you insist...

Mark

Why don't you ever retaliate sensible arguments with sensible arguments?

[Norm dePlume]

I really don't know why this is so hard to understand. The voters vote for a candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins the state. And the state representatives "vote" for what the voters decided.

Mark

That's not what the founders set up. You were talking about what the founders set up, and now you're on to this.