National Popular Vote Bill gets a little closer to realization

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Look who the people are that are giving him all his likes recently...
Not his fault. FDD was "liking" my posts for a while. I don't think either really FDD or sixtimesafool understand the dialogue. For them, it's more like a kid in kindergarden listening to adults. tty has a stick up his butt because I don't know but he's at least able to grasp the issues if not all the details.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Not his fault. FDD was "liking" my posts for a while. I don't think either really FDD or sixtimesafool understand the dialogue. For them, it's more like a kid in kindergarden listening to adults. tty has a stick up his butt because I don't know but he's at least able to grasp the issues if not all the details.

Maybe you can spew 10 paragraphs of hot air out in order to try to make a point. Someone of your perceived intellect should be able to make their point in a few sentences. I think you just like hearing yourself talk. It makes you feel smarter. You're not impressing anyone here, other than yourself. Just so you know. ;)
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Go back and read the original post. Nowhere was it explained.
I hope we can soon end this ends this crappy and boring back and forth.

I replied to you with this:

Can I not do the math and rely on a trusted source? If you can prove the following wrong, I'll have a great laugh with you.

538 electoral votes
The Twelfth Amendment requires the House of Representatives to immediately go into session to vote for a president if no candidate for president receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
I agree that the wording is ambiguous and requires interpretation. The words were not mine but Wikipedia's. A moment of thought might have given the correct interpretation that 270 ec votes is a majority and therefore would NOT involve the HORs. But you and FDD and two strokes just kept arguing about how this initiative is somehow a concession to freedom or some such.

I think that we agree that the president should be elected by a majority of people in this country. FDD and @twostrokenut doesn't even get this simple but reasonable concept. What the national popular vote initiative will do is require EC voters to vote for the winner of the national popular vote regardless of their own state results.
 
Last edited:

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I hope we can soon end this ends this crappy and boring back and forth.

I replied to you with this:



I agree that the wording is ambiguous and requires interpretation. The words were not mine but Wikipedia's. A moment of thought might have given the correct interpretation that 270 ec votes is a majority and therefore would NOT involve the HORs. But you and FDD and two strokes just kept arguing about how this initiative is somehow a concession to freedom or some such.

I think that we agree that the president should be elected by a majority of people in this country. FDD doesn't even get this simple but reasonable concept. What the national popular vote initiative will do is require EC voters to vote for the winner of the national popular vote regardless of their own state results.
I quoted Wikipedia as well, the wording here was much clearer; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Of course I agree with the fundamental concept. States still get Senators and Representatives to represent their interests.

"Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census)."

This is definitely biased towards smaller States and therefore skews the popular vote.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Not quite the same topic, but the next step is removing barriers to voter registration and getting more people signed up and at the ballot box.

There's a lot of voter suppression going on in America.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I quoted Wikipedia as well, the wording here was much clearer; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Of course I agree with the fundamental concept. States still get Senators and Representatives to represent their interests.

"Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census)."

This is definitely biased towards smaller States and therefore skews the popular vote.
If, as right wingers claim the EC were truly written into the constitution to protect minority groups as @fdd2blk and @twostrokenut claim, why were so many groups deprived of the right to vote? This is a false claim. I don't know why FDD and twostroke are so wrapped up with an idea that was a compromise necessary to placate slave holders in 1780. It's time to scrub this sore and clean it out.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
If, as right wingers claim the EC were truly written into the constitution to protect minority groups as @fdd2blk and @twostrokenut claim, why were so many groups deprived of the right to vote? This is a false claim. I don't know why FDD and twostroke are so wrapped up with an idea that was a compromise necessary to placate slave holders in 1780. It's time to scrub this sore and clean it out.
Oh, and we're still at it. Voter suppression is more subtle today, but still pervasive.
 

sixstring2112

Well-Known Member
Not quite the same topic, but the next step is removing barriers to voter registration and getting more people signed up and at the ballot box.

There's a lot of voter suppression going on in America.
Despite Hillary’s active imagination, it’s appropriate to investigate allegations of voter suppression, which has a dark history in this country and against which we need constant vigilance — although requiring an ID is not suppression. In 2008, more than 1,200 felons illegally cast votes in Minnesota’s ultra-close Senate race, in which Al Franken was ultimately declared the winner by 312 votes. But we also need to be vigilant against new forms of lawbreaking. In 2014, three professors from two Virginia universities estimated, based on comprehensive survey data, that 6.4 percent of the nation’s non-citizen population voted illegally in the 2008 election, enough to have changed the outcome in some states. In 2008, more than 1,200 felons illegally cast votes in Minnesota’s ultra-close Senate race, in which Al Franken was ultimately declared the winner by 312 votes. Franken’s vote proved to be the crucial one that allowed Obamacare to become law.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448098/virginia-voter-fraud-report-noncitizens-voted-illegally


theres tons of new evidence coming out i can link,maybe after the meltdown from the libs
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
If, as right wingers claim the EC were truly written into the constitution to protect minority groups as @fdd2blk and @twostrokenut claim, why were so many groups deprived of the right to vote? This is a false claim. I don't know why FDD and twostroke are so wrapped up with an idea that was a compromise necessary to placate slave holders in 1780. It's time to scrub this sore and clean it out.

Go ahead and post my "claim". I bet you can't. You're making shit up because you're dumb. All the words you post can't hide the fact.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Oh, and we're still at it. Voter suppression is more subtle today, but still pervasive.
Vote suppression in the grand tradition of slave states. Is it really subtle? Doesn't fool you or me. And it's not off topic. The same sort who suppress voters are adamant about maintaining the EC as it now is.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Vote suppression in the grand tradition of slave states. Is it really subtle? Doesn't fool you or me. And it's not off topic. The same sort who suppress voters are adamant about maintaining the EC as it now is.
More subtle than leg irons. Not a high bar, granted.

Agreed about who is behind voter suppression efforts. Can't have just ANYONE showing up to vote, can we!

If their ideas were better they wouldn't be afraid of turnout.

Sadly, I see something similar in both parties. 'superdelegates'? WTF is that if not voter suppression or outright rigging the system?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Despite Hillary’s active imagination, it’s appropriate to investigate allegations of voter suppression, which has a dark history in this country and against which we need constant vigilance — although requiring an ID is not suppression. In 2008, more than 1,200 felons illegally cast votes in Minnesota’s ultra-close Senate race, in which Al Franken was ultimately declared the winner by 312 votes. But we also need to be vigilant against new forms of lawbreaking. In 2014, three professors from two Virginia universities estimated, based on comprehensive survey data, that 6.4 percent of the nation’s non-citizen population voted illegally in the 2008 election, enough to have changed the outcome in some states. In 2008, more than 1,200 felons illegally cast votes in Minnesota’s ultra-close Senate race, in which Al Franken was ultimately declared the winner by 312 votes. Franken’s vote proved to be the crucial one that allowed Obamacare to become law.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448098/virginia-voter-fraud-report-noncitizens-voted-illegally


theres tons of new evidence coming out i can link,maybe after the meltdown from the libs
Damn. You lied again. The way laws are written and enforced, voter ID is most definitely is used to suppress selected populations of voters. The people who wrote the laws say so themselves as well as the courts.

That Franken stuff is another idiotic lie.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
More subtle than leg irons. Not a high bar, granted.

Agreed about who is behind voter suppression efforts. Can't have just ANYONE showing up to vote, can we!

If their ideas were better they wouldn't be afraid of turnout.

Sadly, I see something similar in both parties. 'superdelegates'? WTF is that if not voter suppression or outright rigging the system?
Didn't Sanders get that superdelegate issue corrected?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Lol you're kidding, right? How could an independent change the inner workings of the Democratic Party?
Are you just sitting around in a dark room without anything but this forum for news?

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/democrats-changing-superdelegate-rules-a-sanders-win/
“This is a tremendous victory for Senator Sanders’ fight to democratize the Democratic Party and reform the Democratic nominating process,” Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, said in a statement. “We were pleased to work with the Clinton campaign to enact this historic commission.”
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Are you just sitting around in a dark room without anything but this forum for news?

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/democrats-changing-superdelegate-rules-a-sanders-win/
“This is a tremendous victory for Senator Sanders’ fight to democratize the Democratic Party and reform the Democratic nominating process,” Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, said in a statement. “We were pleased to work with the Clinton campaign to enact this historic commission.”
It's a big world, I have no pretensions about keeping up with all of it.

That's what this forum is for, in part.
 
Top