Sounds like same arguments slave owners used.
Connecticut passes bill giving electoral votes to presidential candidate who wins popular vote
- Thread starter tru_m.a.c
- Start date
A direct democracy would give us a one party system. With California and New York residents essentially steering the country from here on out.So voting Democrat qualifies as tyranny?
You have to be throwing any sort of social cohesion in the bushes by supporting this.
I despise Dems but definitely don’t wanna see a society where the pendulum never swings back.
Might be time to put an anarchist hat on.Hol' up, there are already 10 other states already doing this? Or is this interstate compact just recent?
Anyway, don't see the point of this. They're def not going to get the 270 (demographically, red states know they don't have the juice) and shyt can always backfire on you.
Or is this interstate compact just recent?Anyway, don't see the point of this. They're def not going to get the 270 (demographically, red states know they don't have the juice) and shyt can always backfire on you.
The GOP controls every level of the government and there's no real sign that'll change soon. We already have a one party system, just one that didn't win the popular vote. So you're basically saying it's only a problem if the party that gets more actual votes wins.
I'm done.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
This is one bad idea to cover up the other bad idea. The real problems are: money over-influencing politics, gerrymandering, and voting access. Solving those problems does far more good (especially fixing gerrymandering) than this compact thing.
How many bricks of "good" intentions are we gonna lay on this road?
How many bricks of "good" intentions are we gonna lay on this road?
Last edited:
All states would still have senators and representatives in Congress to represent their political interests on the Federal level. The president would be representing the interests of the country as a whole. They would still need enough votes across the country to win the popular vote.
http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-us-population-lives-in-just-9-states-2016-6
Edit: Also, and this says something about my temperament, but I am extremely leery about changing a system that has worked since the country's inception.
I wouldn't touch it.
Your link suggests that a candidate can win the popular vote without a majority of states voting them, which is probably true. Conversely no one can win the popular vote without a majority of voters voting for them.
I don't agree with the premise that the system is working. As has been said the current system gives a handful of states disproportionate power, namely swing states. In the current system we have states that are solidly on one side or the other being largely ignored due to being taken for granted by their party. The needs of these few states get more focus when the population of the states make up a small percentage of the country as a whole. Meaning the needs of the majority of the people are largely ignored.
Really? I'm in New York, as solid blue as it gets. I don't feel like my state is ignored by Democrat candidates in favor of, say, Florida.
I also don't accept that what's a solidly red state today will always be a red state. I'm looking at you, Texas.
It's going to take a lot to convince me to support such a radical change in our election process.
I'd actually argue it was an issue before 43. One of the examples from the 1800s, the election of 1876, helped set the stage for the Jim Crow era.
If you're not familiar with it, the gist of it is the Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes received 47.9% of the popular vote and 165 electoral votes to Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden's 50.9% of the popular vote and 184 electoral votes. 185 electoral votes was needed at the time to win the election and 20 electoral votes were undecided (South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana, with a side of extra fukkery with the electors in Oregon). Both parties declared their candidate won in each of the contested states. So in the Compromise of 1877, the two parties cut a deal in which the 20 undecided votes would go to Rutherford B. Hayes, which would give him the 185 needed to win. In return, the Republican party agreed to remove federal troops from the South, which effectively meant the end of Reconstruction.
That's not to say the election was the cause for the end of Reconstruction. Northern and Republican support for Reconstruction had been waning before the election. Nor would the outcome had been any different had Samuel Tilden won, not with Democrats outwardly wanted to end Reconstruction. But the election was still one of the deciding factors in the fate of Reconstruction, so for Republicans to win it the way they did left a lot of African Americans feeling (rightly IMO) like they had been sold out for political gain.
Side with more potential voters*...hence the tyranny.The GOP controls every level of the government and there's no real sign that'll change soon. We already have a one party system, just one that didn't win the popular vote. So you're basically saying it's only a problem if the party that gets more actual votes wins.
I'm done.
You wanna reduce America down to 3 states the two most populated being blue because the EC elected Trump.
Can’t hate the player
... and what we have now is far from a one party system.
Side with more potential voters*...hence the tyranny.
You wanna reduce America down to 3 states the two most populated being blue because the EC elected Trump.
Can’t hate the player
... and what we have now is far from a one party system.
How does a popular vote "reduce America down to 3 states"? There's no way you can even believe that bullshyt.
If anything it gives politicians incentive to not just focus on a few swing states and ignore everyone else. And many people (including me) have advocated for that long before Trump. The whole reason it even exists is to magnify the power of white voters in "slave" states so many people are fundamentally opposed to it. And yes, going by your definition we're a one party system since one party already controls every level of government.
love to see the fake outrage from the alt right aliases
y'all been missing from a few racial discrimination threads
but we know why don't we