Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-22-2019, 10:34 AM
 
46,973 posts, read 26,018,521 times
Reputation: 29459

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly View Post
This is nothing more than an attempt to stop Trump from winning in 2020. Its irresponsible, dangerous and It will eventually lead to succession. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing “leave it alone”.




https://www.rgj.com/story/news/polit...sh/3760601002/
"The Left"? Nevada? Are you quite well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2019, 10:36 AM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodTheBadTheUgly View Post
This is nothing more than an attempt to stop Trump from winning in 2020. Its irresponsible, dangerous and It will eventually lead to succession. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing “leave it alone”.




https://www.rgj.com/story/news/polit...sh/3760601002/


I guess you'd rather ignore the fact that they also included provision for amendment as another sign they "knew what they were doing", eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
31,340 posts, read 14,285,966 times
Reputation: 27863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
No. Supreme Court ruled in 1893 that Congress does not have to approve interstate agreements that do not increase the powers of states or infringes on federal authority. Legal scholars question if it is even a "compact" at all because nothing of value is exchanged between the states, no goods, trade or money is involved. There's no enforcement clause so it's not a contract either. The compact does not create power or take power away. Each state is exercising their constitutional right to choose electors in the manner they see fit. It's constitutional.
Keep convincing yourself that the Supreme Court isn't eventually going to do something here.


LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 10:48 AM
 
10,513 posts, read 5,171,947 times
Reputation: 14056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
The EC was devised so that America never became a form of "pure" democracy where tyranny of the majority rules.

No, the Electoral College was an awkward compromise designed for one purpose: to accommodate slavery. A direct popular vote was first proposed. But the southern states objected because at the time they had small numbers of white citizens and large numbers of black slaves who could not vote. That meant in every election the Northern candidates would always win. James Madison proposed a solution that included the Electoral College and allowing the slave states to count blacks as 0.6 of a person to apportion electors. This is the famous Three-Fifths Compromise.


The Electoral College is an antiquated band-aid built to accommodate slavery. It no longer serves that purpose and should be abolished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,500,230 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
The idea is Constitutional, and no, such thing would not lead to the country to break apart. As a matter of fact, the country is now more broken and divided than it has ever been thanks to the idiot in the WH.
wrong


under this pact:
the soro's pact (yes he is the one funding this) makes it so the EC votes of every state goes to the winner of the 'popular vote'


so if the people Nevada vote for candidate "A" overwhelmingly , but candidate "B" takes the national popular vote ALL the EC votes of Nevada go to Candidate "B", not matter the fact that they voted for candidate "A"




the 'pact' is not only unconstitutional, but unethical
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,500,230 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
No, the Electoral College was an awkward compromise designed for one purpose: to accommodate slavery. A direct popular vote was first proposed. But the southern states objected because at the time they had small numbers of white citizens and large numbers of black slaves who could not vote. That meant in every election the Northern candidates would always win. James Madison proposed a solution that included the Electoral College and allowing the slave states to count blacks as 0.6 of a person to apportion electors. This is the famous Three-Fifths Compromise.


The Electoral College is an antiquated band-aid built to accommodate slavery. It no longer serves that purpose and should be abolished.
wrong


is was about the small sates like Rhode Island being able to have a say... equal representation






oh course the fascist lefties are for this pact to eliminate the EC....its funded by Soro's

the national popular vote scheme, is a scheme from soros and the marxists/fascists

the 501(c) organization National Popular Vote Inc., a George Soros funded who’s who of the progressive left. ...billionaire George Soros fund sand supports the movement via his myriad 502(c) outfits, such as the Progressive States Network and Common Cause.




Under a National Popular Vote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B, rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant.


the electoral college is there for a reason
..to protect the little guy from the big guys





Plan for Permanent White House control by progressives happening now
Called the “National Popular Vote Compact” this movement has been in the works nationwide – without public attention – on a state-by-state level since at least 2008.

Like other surreptitious actions against the U.S. Constitution, the NPVC “movement” has several promotional websites claiming to represent “true democracy.”

Why would progressives want to switch to a National Popular Vote POTUS?

Do the math: The electoral vote system protects voting rights by giving every individual state a number of electoral votes representing the level of population. In this way, all states in the Union have a proportionate and representative say in who becomes President. It doesn’t matter if the state has more land mass than populace, or if more of the people live in rural areas, etc.



Who is behind the National Popular Vote Compact?
George Soros ...and Vikram Amar & Akhil Reed Amar

Akhil Amar has also “recently proposed that every American should be required to undergo a DNA test so that a national DNA database can be created.”

The National Public Vote Compact bill, promoted nationwide, came from this source in 2001. Since then, the same bill based on their strategy has been filed in states nationwide!

Digging into the background of the National Public Vote Compact – as a means to radically and permanently shift the basis of the Presidency, here’s what we found: highly credentialed attorneys (and brothers) who devised this “state bill” compact, as a strategy to get around the normal requirements for constitutional amendment – and, instead, undermine the Electoral College by bypassing both Congress and the voters!



plan for Permanent White House control by progressives happening now
Called the “National Popular Vote Compact” this movement has been in the works nationwide – without public attention – on a state-by-state level since at least 2008.

Like other surreptitious actions against the U.S. Constitution, the NPVC “movement” has several promotional websites claiming to represent “true democracy.”

The NPVC is a bill now moving state-by-state to make the popular vote winner President by bypassing normal requirements to amend the Constitution. Tts outcome would ensure the Presidency would be declared by giving all the required 270 Electoral Votes needed for a “winner” to the candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes nationally – no matter how small the win margin and no difference how many states voted to oppose him. Here’s[/quote] how it works:

Once enough states have passed the NPVC bill into law to reach the requisite 270 Electoral Votes (by totaling the EV’s of those states which pass this bill) the NPVC goes into immediate effect in the next – and all subsequent – Presidential elections. It doesn’t matter how strongly other states oppose this. We’d all have to go along, if even a minority of states pass it! • Currently, this bill has passed enough state houses to reach more than 160 EV’s – so they are well over half way to their goal right now.
According to most up-to-date information this National Popular Vote Pact has already passed 1 of the 2 required chambers in more than 30 other states- without public attention.
If their magic number of 270 EV totaling states is reached, it won’t matter how the rest of the states vote on this; nor whether other states never take up the bill; not even if other states vehemently object and oppose this action. It would be the Law of the Land!
This sneaky scheme to upend Constitutional rights and protections of all states and their residents in selecting the nation’s leader is underway as an explicit attempt to defeat the careful Constitutional amendment process with no public knowledge, no voter input, no public referendums and no input from states which object to this measure. All NPVC takes is a portion of current state houses to make it law for all of us – always!

Why would progressives want to switch to a National Popular Vote POTUS?
Do the math: The electoral vote system protects voting rights by giving every individual state a number of electoral votes representing the level of population. In this way, all states in the Union have a proportionate and representative say in who becomes President. It doesn’t matter if the state has more land mass than populace, or if more of the people live in rural areas, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 11:02 AM
 
8,059 posts, read 3,949,135 times
Reputation: 5356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
No, the Electoral College was an awkward compromise designed for one purpose: to accommodate slavery. A direct popular vote was first proposed. But the southern states objected because at the time they had small numbers of white citizens and large numbers of black slaves who could not vote. That meant in every election the Northern candidates would always win. James Madison proposed a solution that included the Electoral College and allowing the slave states to count blacks as 0.6 of a person to apportion electors. This is the famous Three-Fifths Compromise.

The Electoral College is an antiquated band-aid built to accommodate slavery. It no longer serves that purpose and should be abolished.
The EC had nothing to do with slavery... the Founding Father's feared and despised direct democracy:

Federalists Papers No.10
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,500,230 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd View Post
Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million. While the constitution has been followed by giving him the electoral college and the White House, the will of the people has been thwarted. Many on the right have been talking about states rights since the civil rights era. Where the states choose to place their electoral votes may just be a state rights issue. If it is not a right denied them by the constitution or the US Code, each state may have the right to decide how their electoral votes are cast.



It is lawful in some states to apportion their electoral votes based on the popular vote. These choices by the states may be beyond challenge.
California is the ONLY reason hitlery got the popular vote... and hitlery went to California (which was a sure-win) more times than any of the other states combined.... trump won 30 states..ie 3/5ths of the country..... but the fascist liberals say screw the MAJORITY of the country

look at the numbers
popular vote difference 2.8 million
Hillary won California BY 4.5 million votes

so the FACT is that of the 49 states, trump (as much as I hate him), took the popular vote, and if not for Kommiefornia, hitlery would NOT have taken the popular vote

California does too dominate...and under this soros scheme, it would be just that... the through slavery "United Socialist States of California" (USSC), screw the rest of the country
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 11:16 AM
 
24,005 posts, read 15,100,850 times
Reputation: 12963
As long as dark money PACS do not need to list their contributors, direct democracy can be bought and sold by the group with the most money. How is it different from mob rule?

What happened to Al Gore was crooked, IMO.

After watching what happened in NC, how could anybody trust the election process.

Rather than direct democracy, I vote anybody voting has to take a test to see if they know how the water gets to their house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2019, 11:23 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,898,651 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
Whatever dude. The country is divided because the democrats WON'T ACCEPT THAT TRUMP BEAT HILLARY IN 2016.
A bunch of people seem to be stuck on this narrative. It's not true.

Democrats didn't want Trump to win. And they have put up a fight against his policies and agenda.

Republicans didn't want Obama to win. And they put up a fight against his policies and agenda.

This is how it works. And the people who keep repeating that anyone doesn't accept elections results, those are the whiners. Our government depends on tension, between the three branches of government, and between the political issues. This is how it works. This is how it is supposed to work.

As for the Popular Vote, the courts will have to determine the Constitutionality. A compact between the states without Congressional approval seems to be Unconstitutional. But states determining how their electoral votes will be handled, is expressly Constitutional.

If this ever tips the scale, I hope it happens in an off-year. I don't want our nation to be in suspense for years while this works its way through the courts. But there won't be any court cases prior to its tipping the scales, because until it does, there are no grounds for a lawsuit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:01 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top