Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
how is that the "winner take all mentality of the left" or do you just automatically throw in a knee-jerk insult of the left in every post?
the left is promoting the "popular vote PACT"..which is a winner take all completely.. your state give ALL its votes to the "national" or "popular" winner....its an all or nothing scheme from the left..
the left is promoting the "popular vote PACT"..which is a winner take all completely.. your state give ALL its votes to the "national" or "popular" winner....its an all or nothing scheme from the left..
the fascist left deserves the insults
Correct, and if your State is in that compact then you have let other States decide your vote, for if your State voted for candidate X and candidate Y won the popular vote, then all your votes are for not.
It would never fly constitutionally. People in a State that voted for candidate A will have been disenfranchised if their electoral votes were given to candidate B. Each State is a sovereign entity under the constitution. The people in California can't decide how the people in Wyoming vote nor the people in Texas how the people in Vermont vote. It is that simple. If folks in California think the people in Wyoming has an unfair advantage they can move to Wyoming for the voting benefit they seem to covet. And the people in TX can move to VT.
My guess is the folks in WY and VT don't want folks from CA (to WY) or TX (to VT) coming however.
This is a complete logical fallacy if you think it's responsive to the post you quoted.
But I am happy with ALL voters having a say, which means every vote being counted equally. Telling some people that their votes count less than the votes of other people isn't remotely fair yet for some reason, Conservatives are perfectly happy with it, because theirs are the votes which receive unfair advantage.
Nothing is preventing any voter from moving to a state that gives them more 'bang for their electoral buck' if that specific point is that important to them.
Quote:
As usual, GOPers follow the
I'm not a Republican, nor a Trump supporter, and there are plenty of people who respect how the founding fathers set up how we select a President who are also not Republicans and not Trump supporters.
Quote:
"I got mine, eff you" standard because they only care about themselves.
Good to know you have such a high opinion of our nation's founding fathers .
I don't see how it could be stopped. It's an ingenious end run around the Constitution. States currently aren't uniform in how the allocate their electoral votes, and that is allowed. The PVC is essentially an extension of that.
Quote:
People in a State that voted for candidate A will have been disenfranchised if their electoral votes were given to candidate B. Each State is a sovereign entity under the constitution. The people in California can't decide how the people in Wyoming vote nor the people in Texas how the people in Vermont vote. It is that simple. If folks in California think the people in Wyoming has an unfair advantage they can move to Wyoming for the voting benefit they seem to covet. And the people in TX can move to VT.
My guess is the folks in WY and VT don't want folks from CA (to WY) or TX (to VT) coming however.
Yep.
And every time I've noticed that mentioned in a thread on CD, I've pointed that out (including my previous post).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.