Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

evince said:
your argument isn't with me

its with all the dictionaries and encyclopedias in the world

government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
Click to expand...

Our government did not create rule by the majority and specifically sought to prevent it. Also, the only government representatives the people were allowed to elect were members of the House. The Senate, president, and judges were not chosen by the people in the original Constitution.
 
Truth Detector said:
:lolup: Lunatic thinks anarchy is the answer.
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

you believe that the founders wanted a strong federal government with a strong standing army?
 
Truth Detector said:
Let's be clear; what is proposed here would certainly circumvent the voters of this state. They are saying they will force their electors to cast ALL their votes for whoever has the most popular votes in the nation. That is most certainly not what happens now and is completely contrary to a Democratic Republic of States.
Click to expand...

The intent of what those supporting it want it to do is clear. They don't want it because they have a problem with the system that's been in place for over 200 years. Their problem is they lost under that system. However, nothing in the Constitution prevents a State from determining its EV in any manner it chooses. If a State chose to determines its EV by having their State legislature choose who they went to, it's in line with the Constitution. It's not a good idea but it's in line with how the founders designed the system by leaving such things up to the States.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you believe that the founders wanted a strong federal government with a strong standing army?
Click to expand...

Article I, Section 8 makes it clear that the founders had no problem with raising and supporting an army and providing and maintaining a navy. In fact, their very words say so.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Our government did not create rule by the majority and specifically sought to prevent it. Also, the only government representatives the people were allowed to elect were members of the House. The Senate, president, and judges were not chosen by the people in the original Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Constitution also did not create rule by gerrymander either.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello SmarterthanYou,



How would that work?

If there was an armed take-over of our government, and it were successful, do you envision that the victors would keep the US Constitution? How could that work after what they did was illegal and in violation of the Constitution? If they destroy the US government which is based on the Constitution, then they are not following the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You're missing the entire point. You're asking a what if related to a takeover of the government. That's wasn't the intention of those that wrote it nor the ones that support the reason for which it was written. When you understand the truth and stop asking stupid what if questions, get back to me.
 
SmarterthanFEW said:
you believe that the founders wanted a strong federal government with a strong standing army?
Click to expand...

No; I believe the founders wanted a LIMITED Federal Government leaving the States to decide their affairs with minimal interference from the Federal Government.

As for a strong standing army; that would only be the case in time of war or crisis that threatens the nation.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

The Constitution also did not create rule by gerrymander either.
Click to expand...

It did not create it but it allowed it to happen by giving that power to the state legislatures. And the gerrymander was invented by men who wrote the Constitution (1812). It has been around since the beginning of the republic and its abuses were much worse than today.

There is no "rule by gerrymander" since it only affects the House and it cannot rule by itself.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
It did not create it but it allowed it to happen by giving that power to the state legislatures. And the gerrymander was invented by men who wrote the Constitution (1812). It has been around since the beginning of the republic and its abuses were much worse than today.

There is no "rule by gerrymander" since it only affects the House and it cannot rule by itself.
Click to expand...

It also affects voting districts used for President.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Not in 48 states. Voting in presidential elections is based on the state-wide vote except NE and ME.
Click to expand...

Correct. Got me on that one.

But there is a practice of voter suppression which utilizes the gerrymandered districts. Those are the districts which get the fewest voting machines, fewest voting locations, shorter hours, longer lines, etc.
 
PoliTalker said:
But there is a practice of voter suppression which utilizes the gerrymandered districts. Those are the districts which get the fewest voting machines, fewest voting locations, shorter hours, longer lines, etc.
Click to expand...

so like Desh, you believe gerrymandering has an impact on presidential elections?.......
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,



Correct. Got me on that one.

But there is a practice of voter suppression which utilizes the gerrymandered districts. Those are the districts which get the fewest voting machines, fewest voting locations, shorter hours, longer lines, etc.
Click to expand...

Voting is usually controlled by county governments. Usually large cities are controlled by Democrats who determine voting locations, hours, etc. Counties controlled by Republicans make those decisions in those counties. You are looking hard for excuses.
 
Flash said:
I don't understand. How did they not count?
Click to expand...

/boggle.......are you engaged in this discussion?......once 100% of the electoral votes of California are won by a candidate, it doesn't matter if that candidate wins by 1 vote or 100M votes......the candidate still gets the same number of electoral votes........in that example, 99.999M votes don't count......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/boggle.......are you engaged in this discussion?......once 100% of the electoral votes of California are won by a candidate, it doesn't matter if that candidate wins by 1 vote or 100M votes......the candidate still gets the same number of electoral votes........in that example, 99.999M votes don't count......
Click to expand...

I understand that but since Hillary won by 4.3 million it would seem that 4.3 million (-1) didn't count. Why only 3 million?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top