Again purple states being the deciding factor is a better situation than blue or reds ones.
Connecticut passes bill giving electoral votes to presidential candidate who wins popular vote
- Thread starter tru_m.a.c
- Start date
Trump got y’all really saying fukk it. Let’s call the would be succession states bluff and if we’re wrong we’re doomed.Cacs aren’t marginalized but if you make enough of them feel like that are they will act. You should really think this through.
We gonna have a Hitler win the popular vote
Can’t believe I’m hearing blacks (12% of the pop) saying we need direct democracy in a country that hates them.
Can’t believe I’m hearing blacks (12% of the pop) saying we need direct democracy in a country that hates them.
Explain how the electoral college currently protects black people from white racism.
The states where most black people live are heavily red anyway for obvious (
) reasons We're just saying there's no reason some cac in Montana's vote should be weighted more simply because few people live there.
In theory the exact reverse of what we saw with trump where a Hitler could lose despite being more popular.Explain how the electoral college currently protects black people from white racism.
The states where most black people live are heavily red anyway for obvious (
We're just saying there's no reason some cac in Montana's vote should be weighted more simply because few people live there.
Under direct democracy there’s no safeguard.
... and I don’t believe the votes mean more by design. Coastal states simply more attractive, and the citizenry has dispersed accordingly.
Moreover, direct democracy would further erode social cohesion.
But states don't vote for state interests in a national election. People vote for personal interests. So if one option fills more people's personal interest why shouldn't they win?This reminds me of the ‘those who pay more in taxes should have more say’ nonsense.
America is made up of United States(don’t even ask me how)not individuals. These states joined and remain in the union with the expectation of equal say.
Break that agreement and successions becomes a reality.
Trump got y’all so mad you’re ready to risk the whole union.
Oh elaborate I wanna hear how this would occur
People vote for state interest at least in part... or to put it differently personal interest differ from state to state... and under a direct democracy the interest of coastal states would determine what was important.
Moreover, it still hasn’t been explained how having a red/blue state with more say is better/more fair than having a purple state with more say? Isn’t having the undecided hand on the lever preferable? Those are the only votes that appear to be earned.
Edit: and your right Congress is the safeguard.
Last edited:
A president represents the nation. The job is to look after national interests. Not the certain states within it. The truest form of selecting someone who looks out for national interests is popular vote. Your also not discounting blue voters in Louisiana or red voters in Cali.
If there are more people in those costal cities they are the majority of the country plain and simple. Unless something gets declared unconstitutional or illegal following the popular vote is literally the will of the people. On what grounds can you otherwise argue this shouldn't be. The safeguards are literally baked into the rest of the system.
Having "weighted" votes on where you live for a national election for one office is literally one of the dumbest things to be contrived American history. It wouldn't exist at all if slaveholders couldve just taken the L.
And please explain this social cohesion nonsense you were spitting.
Making whites feel marginalized always hurts social cohesion.
I understand you must believe they wouldn’t succeed from the union in order to hold your position... but what if you are wrong?
Is the what 3 times the popular candidate lost enough to justify the risk?
As a pure numbers game this would change the game in favor of liberals, especially if it’s followed by automatic registration and some measures that make voting easier.
So I don’t expect a liberal to oppose this in any way. There is simply no reason not to, and there’s no reason for conservatives to support as it dooms their party.
It’s just a partisan issue with zero common ground
Five US presidents in history have been elected despite losing the popular vote: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016.Making whites feel marginalized always hurts social cohesion.
I understand you must believe they wouldn’t succeed from the union in order to hold your position... but what if you are wrong?
Is the what 3 times the popular candidate lost enough to justify the risk?
As a pure numbers game this would change the game in favor of liberals, especially if it’s followed by automatic registration and some measures that make voting easier.
So I don’t expect a liberal to oppose this in any way. There is simply no reason not to, and there’s no reason for conservatives to support as it dooms their party.
It’s just a partisan issue with zero common ground
One time was enough but it's been five times, that's more than enough times to change the system.
At any cost?
AZBeauty
Stop lyin' nicca.
It should ONLY be based on the popular vote. They should do away with the electoral college.
I don't exactly understand what this question means.
My two options are:
1. Get rid of the electoral college completely and just have a popular vote based presidential election like the rest of the elections in this country.
2. Keep the electoral college but have the electoral votes be proportionally based off of the voting percentages.
For example, if candidate won California by the vote of 60% to 31%, the candidate with 60% would get 33 electoral votes and the candidate with 31% would get 17 electoral college votes (CA has 55 electoral college votes).