We The People: National Popular Vote!

[imported_tajmahal]

Ohh my. Some of the votes to pass it happened over 10 YEARS AGO!!!!! I bet some of the people that voted for it aren't even alive anymore and that session of the Legislature has surely changed. It looks like yet another attempt by the left and the Democrats to do an end run around the Constitution is bound to fail.

 

[fskimospy]

Win by large amounts where you win + lose by small amounts where you lose = loser can have more votes that the winner.

If you remove California, I imagine that the numbers would add up to her losing the popular vote. How much of that is due to illegals is a separate issue; but it is basically all about California.

Then of course if you remove Texas it would swing back the other way.

You can't just magically remove states because they have tons of people in them that voted for one candidate or the other. They are just as important as anyone else.

 

[fskimospy]

Ohh my. Some of the votes to pass it happened over 10 YEARS AGO!!!!! I bet some of the people that voted for it aren't even alive anymore and that session of the Legislature has surely changed. It looks like yet another attempt by the left and the Democrats to do an end run around the Constitution is bound to fail.

This is an embarrassingly ignorant post. The Constitution says states can award electors any way they want, and those states decided they wanted to do it by national popular vote. If you're complaining that they shouldn't be able to do that then you're the one making an end run around the Constitution.

I've always found it amusing how ultra right conservatives say how much they love the Constitution until it says something they don't like.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This is an embarrassingly ignorant post. The Constitution says states can award electors any way they want, and those states decided they wanted to do it by national popular vote. If you're complaining that they shouldn't be able to do that then you're the one making an end run around the Constitution.

I've always found it amusing how ultra right conservatives say how much they love the Constitution until it says something they don't like.

So you're saying that even a vote from 1860 would still be valid in this case?

 

[Brainonska511]

So you're saying that even a vote from 1860 would still be valid in this case?

The social contract. Look it up. We are bound by votes for the Constitution over 200 years ago, why wouldn't we be bound by old laws made before our time? The issue here is that sometimes, old things should be revisited to see if it makes sense to continue doing something the way we have always been doing it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The social contract. Look it up. We are bound by votes for the Constitution over 200 years ago, why wouldn't we be bound by old laws made before our time? The issue here is that sometimes, old things should be revisited to see if it makes sense to continue doing something the way we have always been doing it.

So you don't think there should be any time limit at all on this proposal?

 

[fskimospy]

So you're saying that even a vote from 1860 would still be valid in this case?

Any law on the books that has not been repealed or ruled unconstitutional remains in force in perpetuity.

Glad to see you dropped the Constitution nonsense.

 

[fskimospy]

So you don't think there should be any time limit at all on this proposal?

Why would these laws be special? Seems you want special rules to apply to things you don't like.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Why would these laws be special? Seems you want special rules to apply to things you don't like.

Most Constitutional Amendments have a 7 year limit. While there are exceptions (27th for example) those are the exceptions, not the rule. Modern proposals should have a time limit and not just continue in perpetuity until sometime, somehow they get passed.

 

[Blue_Max]

Seems you want special rules to apply to things you don't like.

...says the side who just passed a law to protect their preferred gender pronouns.

 

[Brainonska511]

So you don't think there should be any time limit at all on this proposal?

Not necessarily. There is no reason to work in absolutes. Just that when we notice problems, we should consider reevaluation instead of screaming "tradition" and founding fathers ouija board and trying to shut down any discussion.

If we wanted to change our minds on this proposal in the states that have signed on, we can always pass another law that backs us out of it.

 

[fskimospy]

...says the side who just passed a law to protect their preferred gender pronouns.

Lolwut. You are so, so hung up on sex, women, and gender identity issues it is sad.

 

[fskimospy]

Most Constitutional Amendments have a 7 year limit. While there are exceptions (27th for example) those are the exceptions, not the rule. Modern proposals should have a time limit and not just continue in perpetuity until sometime, somehow they get passed.

This is not a constitutional amendment so I don't see how it applies.

 

[Jaskalas]

Most Constitutional Amendments have a 7 year limit. While there are exceptions (27th for example) those are the exceptions, not the rule. Modern proposals should have a time limit and not just continue in perpetuity until sometime, somehow they get passed.

There's your problem. States voting on authority they ALREADY have is not a "Constitutional Amendment".

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Not necessarily. There is no reason to work in absolutes. Just that when we notice problems, we should consider reevaluation instead of screaming "tradition" and founding fathers ouija board and trying to shut down any discussion.

If we wanted to change our minds on this proposal in the states that have signed on, we can always pass another law that backs us out of it.

Good point, but it's still my opinion that having a time limit on the proposal is just common sense.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This is not a constitutional amendment so I don't see how it applies.

Good ideas and thoughtful legislative proposals apply to everything. Nice weave there though.

 

[Brainonska511]

Good point, but it's still my opinion that having a time limit on the proposal is just common sense.

It's not really a proposal though and it doesn't seem like common sense has anything to do with whether this needs a time limit or not. It's actually a change of state law to determine how electoral votes are delegated that will only take effect when a critical mass of states change their laws. And again, if a state like NY decides it doesn't like this idea after all, we could change our law back to winner of the at-large vote in the state gets the delegates.

 

[stormkroe]

Then of course if you remove Texas it would swing back the other way.

You can't just magically remove states because they have tons of people in them that voted for one candidate or the other. They are just as important as anyone else.

The problem with this back-and-forth is that you run out of red states with many blues left in your deck.
If we're willing to say that solid colored states get dismal opposition voter turnout, then it has to be a fact that a popular vote model will add significantly more conservatives than liberals to the voting pool.

 

[cubby1223]

Then of course if you remove Texas it would swing back the other way.

You can't just magically remove states because they have tons of people in them that voted for one candidate or the other. They are just as important as anyone else.

Nope.

Carve California out, Trump wins the popular vote. Carve both California & Texas out, Trump still wins the popular vote.

The point is to the lefties who can't move on with their lives, who continually speak about the will of the people, what our nation voted for, blah blah bla - it is important for them to understand that they are speaking only of California. The arguments made by the lefties when they try to speak about the whole of the country, just don't apply as they would hope it to.

 

[fskimospy]

Good ideas and thoughtful legislative proposals apply to everything. Nice weave there though.

You're the guy who is trying to duck and dodge by declaring we should apply the same standards to constitutional amendments as to lawfully enacted statutes. Neither the federal nor any state constitution does this, seems like everyone agreed it was a bad idea.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope.

Carve California out, Trump wins the popular vote. Carve both California & Texas out, Trump still wins the popular vote.

The point is to the lefties who can't move on with their lives, who continually speak about the will of the people, what our nation voted for, blah blah bla - it is important for them to understand that they are speaking only of California. The arguments made by the lefties when they try to speak about the whole of the country, just don't apply as they would hope it to.

No, the point is that if you have to irrationally delete states to make things the way you want your argument is stupid.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is an embarrassingly ignorant post.

And yet he made that one and others ad nauseam gleefully. I think there must be an explanation as to how this can possibly be, some sort of psychological facts that cause this to happen. My sense is that he is from an environment that placed high demands on conformity and punished any signs of emotional expression that would be seen as emotional weakness, that he was shamed into to never showing shame. This was done because without shame one can no longer question or escape ones mental prison.

The question that fascinates me is whether there is anything that can be done for people like that. One could hope, I suppose, that a massive and continual mirroring of of the absurdity of that mental condition might awaken some need for self examination but I wouldn't bet on it. People just get better at being defensive.

Anyway, just wanted to say I think there are reasons for the astonishing irrationality we see all over the place in these threads, and that the people who exhibit it most when exposed by your depth of knowledge and high capacity for reason, will not take kindly to it. They are trying desperately to protect themselves from pain and in doing so they can become very nasty.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Reasonable people see this for exactly what it is, angry Democrats changing a law so it becomes easier to manipulate it in the future. How many people really believe that the extra 1,400,000 or so votes in Los Angeles County are actually legitimate? Other then the few Democrat and liberal posters in this forum.

 

[Moonbeam]

The elites and wise with their "let them eat cake" mentality is why we ended up with Trump, Democrats need to get back to their roots "the middle class" and stop playing "Republican light" for their corporate masters once they get in office.

They didn't just lose the presidency but the house and senate as well, which wouldn't have happened if they actually were looking out for the the "deplorable little people" like they used to in the past that they now despise, but love to court celebrities and other high profile people instead.

You make some excellent points in my opinion. Unfortunately, also in my opinion, we live in a gigantc sleeping organism like an amoeba that moves this way and that according to the momentum generated by the flow of protoplasm, like the turning of a battleship, and it is only the slow evolution of conscious awareness and conscious intent that causes a slow change in direction. You can't make sleepy Democrats suddenly see the light. It is happening even now but it takes time to see effects. One does what one is consciously can. New organs of perception are born of need and we have just increased our need to win. Let's see what may come of that.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

How many people really believe that the extra 1,400,000 or so votes in Los Angeles County are actually legitimate?

Considering California had issued 605,000 driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in the first year of AB 60 passing (2015), and considering that obtaining a driver's license in California automatically registers you to vote, we Trump supporters definitely do not believe all those votes are legitimate.