Michael Moore Talks Why Trump Won, Abolishing Electoral College, What Democrats Must Do

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-zPI0p5LeQ

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Fat f*ck.


Edit: Okay, so I actually watched. He and that other cow said (first two minutes) that the "archaic" electoral college must be done away with. It is actually much easier for them to make a convincing case for their own populism than making an electoral college case. I wonder how many people could actually articulate the electoral college purpose and why the founders supported it. If people are not educated on the electoral college, then it could be upended just as easily as the 17th amendment (US senate popular vote) was implemented.

[Schifference]

The country would be so much better had Hillary won. Her integrity would have put the world at peace. Her steadfast positions would elevate mankind to a level never dreamed of. If only Hillary had won.

[goldenequity]

....and yet Barack Obama won the electoral college. Twice. Now it's archaic.

[CaptUSA]

The country would be so much better had Hillary won. Her integrity would have put the world at peace. Her steadfast positions would elevate mankind to a level never dreamed of. If only Hillary had won.

The only real difference I could see is that the left media would be singing her praises while the alt media would be up in arms. Other than that, not much else would change. Maybe worse SC judges. But Obamacare would still be the law. We'd still be intervening all over the globe. Spending would still be increasing at alarming rates. The police state would still be growing. The refreshing thing, though, is that if Hillary won, we wouldn't have RPF people trying to defend this crap.

As far a Michael Moore goes, I read a book of his back in the 90's in which he talked about how much he LOOOVED Hillary. She was his ideal woman. :rolleyes: Would you expect anything different from a left cheerleader?

[Schifference]

If Hillary were in office right now, a known criminal who is "careless" and has memory deficit would be praised by most all. If she gets convicted of crimes, the left will still support her.

When considering HRC, Obama was a great president.

The country had opportunities to elect a true patriot, Ron Paul.

I cannot stand the hypocrisy. If she does it oh it doesn't matter. If they do it they belong in jail.

I am glad the media is being exposed for their extreme bias. It is crazy how you can watch a person give a speech and come away feeling pretty confident that when they pointed to the grass and said look at how green that grass is, you knew they were talking about the grass. Once the commentators get on they begin to explain the meaning of the green grass or they edit the piece up to mean something totally different. It is amazing how something simple can be misconstrued.

[mvymvy]

....and yet Barack Obama won the electoral college. Twice. Now it's archaic.

Obama ALSO won the national popular vote twice.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

NationalPopularVote

[dannno]

Obama ALSO won the national popular vote twice.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Ya, this is why Democracy is such a horrible system of government. Glad that is not what our country's form of government is.

[dannno]

The only real difference I could see is that the left media would be singing her praises while the alt media would be up in arms.

The alt-media would be in prison and banned from the interwebs.

[Swordsmyth]

Obama ALSO won the national popular vote twice.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The American Federation should not be dominated by one or two regions, if you don't like the Electoral College or the Senate secede.

[Swordsmyth]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

NationalPopularVote
A terrible Idea.

[timosman]

A terrible Idea.

How would the 2016 election look like if this rule was in place?

[Swordsmyth]

How would the 2016 election look like if this rule was in place?

Thanks to the millions of votes from Illegals and other Dem vote fraud operations Hitlery would have been given 270.

[dannno]

How would the 2016 election look like if this rule was in place?

Retarded

https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/DPBiYMoZFeDcOT9W30cvx8Km7g0=/fit-in/1200x9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fima ge%2F160588%2FJul-28-2016_23-39-26.gif

[timosman]

Thanks to the millions of votes from Illegals and other Dem vote fraud operations Hitlery would have been given 270.

I think it would have been decided by the sum of the rounding errors in each state. Say a state with 7 EV is split 50/50 - how do you allocate?

[Swordsmyth]

I think it would have been decided by the sum of the rounding errors in each state. Say a state with 7 EV is split 50/50 - how do you allocate?
According to the stupid idea each state in the cartel would give all it's EC votes to the candidate with the most votes NATION WIDE.

[timosman]

According to the stupid idea each state in the cartel would give all it's EC votes to the candidate with the most votes NATION WIDE.

WTF is this crap?!:eek:

[angelatc]

According to the stupid idea each state in the cartel would give all it's EC votes to the candidate with the most votes NATION WIDE.

Saul Anuzis lobbied hard to get that passed here in Michigan.

[Swordsmyth]

Saul Anuzis lobbied hard to get that passed here in Michigan.
It needs to be undone in the states that have passed it.

[timosman]

It needs to be undone in the states that have passed it.

Yup, a clusterfuck in the making. It would change the country. This looks like a power grab by the states signing up for this.

[Swordsmyth]

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/sites/default/files/npv_bigstatessquaremap_v3.jpg
From the website.
Green states have enacted this.

CALExit will help.

[Krugminator2]

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Most Americans are morons and belong in a zoo.

This country needs much less democracy. The Framers very smartly didn't want one geographic region dominating. I don't want people from California, New York, and other failed states determining an outsized say on my life. If I could, I would give them a smaller voice because what the majority people in those states advocate is not only unconstitutional but outright immoral.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The National Popular Vote...

NationalPopularVote


I see that every one of your posts since 2008 is promoting this idea.

Most everything you said would result in the opposite of what you said. If you eliminated the electoral college, then the following would result:


1. It would be one more area where states don't count. If you tally every issue nationally, then why even have states?

2. Politicians would only have to campaign in select, populous areas, such as the northeast corridor (Boston, NY, Philly, DC,), LA (southern Cal), Chicago, and a few others. They could ignore less populous states: Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, New Mexico, Alaska, Iowa, Mississippi, West Virginia, Nevada, and others.

3. The above point ensures what the founding fathers attempted to avoid: a regionally divided nation where urban elites rule rural and even suburban people.

4. Your claim about every vote counting is not demonstrated. All the votes in the less populous states (point 2 above) would be practically worthless.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

"The View is averaging 2.7 million viewers with 550,000 of them in the female 25-54 demographic."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/view-sees-ratings-lift-election-872080

So close to 3 million people saw this promotion of the national popular vote on a progressive TV show.



Does anybody know of any efforts to promote the electoral college? Anybody ever go on other websites (e.g., DU) and promote the pluses of the electoral college system? Any other education or similar efforts?

We sit here and play defense when Democrats, progressives, etc. come on this forum and push an idea. We should actually be playing offense. Instead of defending against a national popular vote, we should be promoting the electoral college elsewhere.

[mvymvy]

I see that every one of your posts since 2008 is promoting this idea.

Most everything you said would result in the opposite of what you said. If you eliminated the electoral college, then the following would result:


1. It would be one more area where states don't count. If you tally every issue nationally, then why even have states?

2. Politicians would only have to campaign in select, populous areas, such as the northeast corridor (Boston, NY, Philly, DC,), LA (southern Cal), Chicago, and a few others. They could ignore less populous states: Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, New Mexico, Alaska, Iowa, Mississippi, West Virginia, Nevada, and others.

3. The above point ensures what the founding fathers attempted to avoid: a regionally divided nation where urban elites rule rural and even suburban people.

4. Your claim about every vote counting is not demonstrated. All the votes in the less populous states (point 2 above) would be practically worthless.

You must not have read any of my posts well.

All the votes in the less populous states would be equal to votes anywhere else in the country.
The candidate with the most popular votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill does not eliminate the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections. It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"
“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

In the 2016 general election campaign

Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential general elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored like the big ones because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

[mvymvy]

Most Americans are morons and belong in a zoo.

This country needs much less democracy. The Framers very smartly didn't want one geographic region dominating. I don't want people from California, New York, and other failed states determining an outsized say on my life. If I could, I would give them a smaller voice because what the majority people in those states advocate is not only unconstitutional but outright immoral.

Morons?

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), and Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969).

Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressmen Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).

[timosman]

The National Popular Vote bill does not eliminate the Electoral College.

LOL

[goldenequity]

https://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Screen-Shot-2017-08-10-at-6.08.08-PM.png

Hillary's Pastor: "Your Losing is just like Jesus dying." (http://freebeacon.com/politics/clintons-pastor-compared-her-election-loss-death-jesus/)

[mvymvy]

. . . I don't want people from California, New York, and other failed states determining an outsized say on my life . . .

The 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective,
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

[mvymvy]

LOL

All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states in the Electoral College in December will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The president will continue to be elected by the Electoral College.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You must not have read any of my posts well.




I read it well enough to figure out it does not make sense. Your idea is diametrically opposed to what the founders wanted. It is emphatically opposed to making every vote count.

[dannno]

You must not have read any of my posts well.

All the votes in the less populous states would be equal to votes anywhere else in the country.

Stopped reading right there.

YOU don't get it. YOU can't read.

[mvymvy]

Yup, a cluster$#@! in the making. It would change the country. This looks like a power grab by the states signing up for this.

Because each state has independent power to award its electoral votes in the manner it sees fit, it is difficult to see what "adverse effect" might be claimed by one state from the decision of another state to award its electoral votes in a particular way. It is especially unclear what adverse "political" effect might be claimed, given that the National Popular Vote compact would treat votes cast in all 50 states and the District of Columbia equally. A vote cast in a compacting state is, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact does not confer any advantage on states belonging to the compact as compared to non-compacting states. A vote cast in a compacting state would be, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact certainly would not reduce the voice of voters in non-compacting states relative to the voice of voters in member states.

[mvymvy]

Stopped reading right there.

YOU don't get it. YOU can't read.

The votes from all 50 states and DC would simply be added together. A vote in Wyoming would be one vote. A vote in Texas would be one vote. All votes would be equal.
No weighting. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It’s Time To Repeal The 17th Amendment And End Direct Election Of Senators
Out of manufactured hysteria over nonexistent corruption, the Seventeenth Amendment was born, robbing states of their most notable constitutional check on federal lawmaking.
By Connor Mighell
August 8, 2017





If you asked me to name one thing America could do right now to remedy many of our national problems, my response would be simple: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Do it yesterday.

The Framers of the Constitution originally gave state legislatures the power to participate in federal lawmaking by choosing senators to represent their interests in Washington. Through a campaign of misinformation, progressive reformers successfully removed that rightful power from the states. It’s high time we gave it back.


The History of A Mistake

When the Constitutional Convention first considered how Congress would be constructed, James Wilson proposed that the people should directly elect their senators, rather than state legislatures. His idea was soundly defeated by a 10-1 vote. Indeed, scholars have since noted that legislative election of senators “was one of the few non-controversial decisions reached by the Constitutional Convention.” None of the state ratification conventions objected to the proposal either.

Yet in the late 1800s, the Progressive movement turned its ire on this constitutional provision. With their unshakeable belief in the moral rightness of democracy, progressives argued that legislative election of senators led inevitably to state-level political corruption. Their revisionist historians painted a picture of a vast political conspiracy, in which state elections were regularly bought and sold by local party machines to elect senators who would serve the interests of the elites above those of the people. (For all you film buffs, they argued that the conflict portrayed in the excellent movie “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” was the rule, rather than the exception.)

But as many historians have recognized, the data simply wasn’t on progressives’ side. Only three senatorial elections were investigated for corruption between 1857 and 1900. And over more than a century of legislative election of senators, only ten total elections were contested for impropriety of any sort. State electoral deadlocks over selection of federal senators were also rarer than progressives claimed, and most state legislatures dealt with such disagreements while continuing to govern.

The progressives dealt with this roadblock to their agenda by spreading “fake news.” Media mogul William Randolph Hearst and his “yellow journalists” spread the idea of widespread senatorial corruption using flamboyant headlines like “The Treason of the Senate.”

Over time, people began to believe the lie. In a grassroots rebellion, they elected state representatives who supported direct election of senators. When 31 states passed resolutions calling for an amendment, Congress finally capitulated.

Thus, out of manufactured hysteria over nonexistent corruption, the Seventeenth Amendment was born, robbing states of their most notable constitutional check on federal lawmaking in the name of “democracy.” Ever since, states have been reduced to hiring lobbyists to influence federal policy. In 2009, state and local governments spent more than $83.5 million on such efforts.
Repeal Would Empower The States

Regardless of how it came to be, the Seventeenth Amendment savages the balance of power inherent in the constitutional structure. The Constitution created a system of checks and balances not only at the federal level, but between federal, state, and local governments. This system is fundamentally based on balancing self-interest.

States are interested in exclusively maintaining as much power over health, safety, and welfare policy as possible. They naturally desire to prevent federal intrusion into these areas, and would work to shield their citizens from federal overreach. However, the Seventeenth Amendment deprives them of the ability to do so.

If the Seventeenth Amendment were repealed, every state would have an equal number of seats at the table of federal lawmaking. Size and wealth would not matter. The current arrangement favors whatever state can hire the most effective lobbyists.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would also increase voter interest in state elections. As average Americans paid more attention to state politics, it would usher in a new era of local civic involvement. And no, state legislative elections would not turn into mere contests to determine who would elect our federal senators, as voters would still need to consider the way their state senators would govern on local matters.

If states had lawmaking representatives in Washington, federal laws would likely begin to exhibit a more measured tone. Legislatively elected senators would work to allow states more room to act on behalf of their people. State legislators would themselves have more power under this system, and as fewer people vote for them, they could be more easily held accountable.
No, Repeal Isn’t Undemocratic

Yes, some strident critics accuse those advocating for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment of removing the people’s “right” to choose their representatives in Washington. They characterize this return to the Constitution’s original structure as a fringe right-wing idea driven by bigotry that aims to take away power from the American people.

This mendacious scare-mongering deserves a response. First of all, Americans have never had a right to elect their senators. They do have a right to elect their representatives to the House, and they still would if the Seventeenth Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The houses of Congress were always intended to serve two separate functions based on who elected their inhabitants. Moreover, the people would still be able to influence legislative election of senators by voting for state representatives. Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would not be undemocratic or un-American in the slightest.

So let’s give states back their original power to stop federal overreach by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Let’s remedy our century-old mistake. It just might save the republic.

This article was originally published at Merion West.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/time-repeal-17th-amendment-end-direct-election-senators/




//

[dannno]

The votes from all 50 states and DC would simply be added together. A vote in Wyoming would be one vote. A vote in Texas would be one vote. All votes would be equal.
No weighting. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Clearly you aren't reading what other people are writing and you aren't here to learn anything.

[dannno]

Because each state has independent power to award its electoral votes in the manner it sees fit, it is difficult to see what "adverse effect" might be claimed by one state from the decision of another state to award its electoral votes in a particular way. It is especially unclear what adverse "political" effect might be claimed, given that the National Popular Vote compact would treat votes cast in all 50 states and the District of Columbia equally. A vote cast in a compacting state is, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact does not confer any advantage on states belonging to the compact as compared to non-compacting states. A vote cast in a compacting state would be, in every way, equal to a vote cast in a non-compacting state. The National Popular Vote compact certainly would not reduce the voice of voters in non-compacting states relative to the voice of voters in member states.

No adverse effects??

Do you know what messageboard you are on? Have you asked anybody here why Democracy is such a poor system?

Let's say all of the people in the city vote to make all of the people in the country their slaves, because there are more people in the city than in the country they hold the majority. That is not an adverse effect?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Clearly you [mvymvy] aren't reading what other people are writing and you aren't here to learn anything.


Dannno is correct about mvymvy. mvymvy is not even reading anybody's posts. Every single post of mvymvy (since he joined in 2008) is promoting national popular vote. That appears to be his sole purpose on this site. Nothing wrong with opposing views, but this guy is just using the site for pay/promotion.

+ rep Dannno

- rep mvymvy

[timosman]

All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states in the Electoral College in December will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

Can this be more convoluted? They should say instead the popular vote winner takes all from all signatory states. Once we have co-opted enough states to have 270 electoral votes the electoral college is no longer at play.


The president will continue to be elected by the Electoral College.

Whatever.

[angelatc]

It needs to be undone in the states that have passed it.

Yeah. If it had passed here, sHe would have won the electoral votes despite losing every demographic here. People who support the NPV hate the idea of 50 different states - they essentially want to abolish local politics entirely.

Meanwhile, we're over here wishing the 17th would be repealed.

[angelatc]

All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states in the Electoral College in December will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The president will continue to be elected by the Electoral College.

The only reason the NPV exists is because amending the Constitution is hard and unpopular. This was specifically designed to circumvent original intent - to take power away from the states without being bothered by the law of the land.


I read it well enough to figure out it does not make sense. Your idea is diametrically opposed to what the founders wanted. It is emphatically opposed to making every vote count.


This ^^^.

[timosman]

Yeah. If it had passed here, sHe would have won the electoral votes despite losing every demographic here. People who support the NPV hate the idea of 50 different states - they essentially want to abolish local politics entirely.

Workers of the world unite!


Meanwhile, we're over here wishing the 17th would be repealed.

Give me liberty or give me death. :cool:

[angelatc]

the talking points here are found verbatim on this site, as is a rebuttal:
(http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2017/05/if-electoral-college-were-abolished.html)


NPV is facially unconstitutional, as Congress must approve any interstate compact and has not done so in this case. And NPV is most definitely an interstate compact; its proponents say so.

Additionally, the Constitution guarantees to every state a republican form of government. Holding an election but then awarding the benefits of that election (the electoral votes) to a candidate other than the one that won the election, regardless of the method of selecting the benefiting candidate, would clearly be an abrogation of the republican form of government the Constitution guarantees and would therefore be unconstitutional.

[angelatc]

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2017/05/if-electoral-college-were-abolished.html?showComment=1495114669627#c47008708 30515772583

Another good rebuttal, which the talking point generator-tron didn't address. I am thinking it has a box, and can't step out of it.


A careful reading of the Constitution of the United States, however, will reveal that the Constitution does not consider you or me to be citizens of the United States first, but citizens of our states. The United States is not comprised firstly of its citizens, but of its states and commonwealths. So it is the states that elect the president - weighted more or less by population, but slanted somewhat towards the notion that each state, as a state, is equal to the others.

[timosman]

NPV is facially unconstitutional

That's what the opponents of NPV think. What if we have a left leaning SCOTUS who will decide otherwise.

[mvymvy]

No adverse effects??

Do you know what messageboard you are on? Have you asked anybody here why Democracy is such a poor system?

Let's say all of the people in the city vote to make all of the people in the country their slaves, because there are more people in the city than in the country they hold the majority. That is not an adverse effect?

The National Popular Vote bill is only about electing the President.

The candidate with the most national popular votes would win the Presidency by winning the majority of Electoral College votes.
That's it.

People would not be voting nationally about any policy issues.

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

[angelatc]

That's what the opponents of NPV think. What if we have a left leaning SCOTUS who will decide otherwise.

It's not like we haven't seen that before. "It's not a tax, so it's ok that it did not originate in the House! Oh wait, it's only Constitutional if it's a tax? OK, it's a tax!"

[mvymvy]

That's what the opponents of NPV think. What if we have a left leaning SCOTUS who will decide otherwise.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

[mvymvy]

. . . People who support the NPV hate the idea of 50 different states - they essentially want to abolish local politics entirely.

. . . .

That's making a lot of assumptions.

The National Popular Vote is ONLY about electing the candidate who wins the most national popular votes in the country, by guaranteeing a majority of electoral college votes for that candidate.

That's it.

The National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections.
State legislatures are choosing to change, again, the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
State legislators are hardly people who hate the idea of 50 different states.
Of Course they don't want to abolish local politics.

The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

[Krugminator2]

Morons?



Oh. Why didn't you say sooner that Bob Dole, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump and Gerald Ford are for it? That changes everything. Now I want California to determine the Presidency. If Newt Gingrich is for it, I'm in.

[angelatc]

The National Popular Vote bill is only about electing the President.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

Electing the President by popular vote gives too much power to the majority. The founders went to great lengths to avoid democracy as much as possible.

I get it. You hate America and want to change it.

[angelatc]

That's making a lot of assumptions.

The National Popular Vote is ONLY about electing the candidate who wins the most national popular votes in the country, by guaranteeing a majority of electoral college votes for that candidate.

That's it..

And I don't like that idea. In fact, I detest that idea. I think the president should be representing 50 United States, not 320 million people. Where am I losing you here?

[angelatc]

50% of the people live in these counties. 14 states have none of these counties. 12 states have 1. The NPV would literally erase any influence by these states.


https://i.imgur.com/215bPKp.jpg

[timosman]

It does not abolish the Electoral College.

How can you say this?:confused:

[angelatc]

I am in favor of abolishing the "winner take all" system of giving all the EC votes to the winner of the state. I'd rather see them divided proportionally. So if sHe won CA with 60% of the vote, she would get 60% of the EC votes from CA.

[angelatc]

How can you say this?:confused:

It's correct - it merely mandates that the electors ignore the votes of their home state. The EC isn't being abolished - the states are.

[timosman]

I am in favor of abolishing the "winner take all" system of giving all the EC votes to the winner of the state. I'd rather see them divided proportionally. So if sHe won CA with 60% of the vote, she would get 60% of the EC votes from CA.

Isn't there a proposal promoting this solution already? The problem I see however with this proposal is rounding errors when allocating votes. 50-50 split and 7 electoral votes in a state. Who gets what?

[timosman]

It's correct - it merely mandates that the electors ignore the votes of their home state. The EC isn't being abolished - the states are.

It is not a big change then.:cool:

[angelatc]

Isn't there a proposal promoting this solution already? The problem I see however with this proposal is rounding errors when allocating votes. 50-50 split and 7 electoral votes in a state. Who gets what?

In a 50/50 split there's no winner. In the incredibly unlikely event that there was a tie....flip a coin.

I would actually prefer a duel, but I guess that's not realistic.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

In Gallup polls....

You have not cited one single item in your post. Support for your national popular vote has fallen.




http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/o6bofyd0tusuf1sxmd-t9g.png





http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/d2kjudncvku_sop7sz9vgq.png




















Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters,....



No, it is not strong among Republicans:


http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vfmrqqtmq0ulvu5d83cj6a.png




http://www.gallup.com/poll/198917/americans-support-electoral-college-rises-sharply.aspx

[sparebulb]

Support the National Popular Vote bill

Massachusetts: Tell the Senate to pass National Popular Vote!

Do you think that the President of the United States should be elected by popular vote — rather than voters in a handful of so-called “swing states” deciding the outcome? Shouldn’t everyone’s vote count equally?

If you said “yes”, please take a moment to email your State Senator in support of National Popular Vote.

http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/...QIwG&b=4344431


This is mvymvy's very first post. Every single one of his posts is against the electoral process for the presidential election.

I don't know what kind of troll he is, but at least he stays on point, unlike some of our general demoralization trolls with which we are most familiar.

[P3ter_Griffin]

mvymvy

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/move-to-diminish-electoral-college-faces-constitutional-roadblocks


NPV proponents claim no constitutional amendment is needed because the Constitution leaves the appointment of electors to the states.

This is true, but the U.S. Supreme Court will likely object to this plan because it violates the Compact Clause of the Constitution.

The Compact Clause prohibits states from making interstate agreements without Congress’s approval. NPV enthusiasts concede the plan is an interstate compact, but they claim it does not need congressional approval.

The Supreme Court has allowed some interstate agreements without congressional approval, but only those that do not disadvantage states that have not joined the agreement. For example, the Court has allowed agreements resolving state boundaries or multistate tax commissions to exist without congressional approval. However, these are dramatically different from agreeing to intentionally circumvent how the President is elected. Since the NPV compact proposes such a dramatic change to the constitutional system of electing the President, it must be submitted to Congress.

However, Congress is constitutionally incapable of approving the NPV.

The Supreme Court has held that congressional approval of an interstate agreement makes the agreement federal law. The Supremacy Clause prevents Congress from enacting laws contrary to the Constitution.

Congress could not constitutionally create a popular vote system by itself. How could it enact a state-based plan that does the same?

In short, it cannot. Thus, the dilemma facing NPV proponents: the NPV compact must be submitted to Congress but cannot be approved by Congress. Any effort to change the Electoral College system to a national popular vote system will need a constitutional amendment.

Thoughts?

[P3ter_Griffin]

NPV is like adding a new rule to an unwilling game of house.

[angelatc]

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." ".

Wait - you're just glossing over the whole Hamilton thing? (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This is mvymvy's very first post.


mvymvy quotes CommonCause.org, an organization promoting minimum wage, net neutrality, national popular vote, "broadband for all," continuation of phone subsidies for people, etc.

mvymvy has made a handful of posts since 2008, all of them being about the national popular vote. What kind of person does this? So does he work for Common Cause? Open Society Foundations?

[angelatc]

mvymvy quotes CommonCause.org, an organization promoting minimum wage, net neutrality, national popular vote, "broadband for all," continuation of phone subsidies for people, etc.

mvymvy has made a handful of posts since 2008, all of them being about the national popular vote. What kind of person does this? So does he work for Common Cause? Open Society Foundations?

Whats really weird is that s/he reappeared for this thread. Is there an alarm that's triggered when certain subjects come up? (I know the Jewish community used to have such a system. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool)Probably still do, just more evolved.)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Whats really weird is that s/he reappeared for this thread. Is there an alarm that's triggered when certain subjects come up? (I know the Jewish community used to have such a system. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool)Probably still do, just more evolved.)


Hmm; that could be. I noticed though that there are threads with the words "electoral college" where mvymvy did not post; however, I notice that a lot of these guys are occasional posters. Either way, these guys aren't some run-of-the-mill college boys goofing on a forum. I'd bet more than even money some of them are with Soros' Open Society Foundation projects.

[goldenequity]

Whats really weird is that s/he reappeared for this thread. Is there an alarm that's triggered when certain subjects come up? (I know the Jewish community used to have such a system. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool)Probably still do, just more evolved.)

probable/possible AI aka: chat bot (not kidding)

[Origanalist]

Morons?


Yes, morons.

[timosman]

probable/possible AI aka: chat bot (not kidding)

The interesting thing is there is always some troll meddling on RPF.

[goldenequity]

Microsoft’s Zo chatbot told a user that ‘Quran is very violent’
Microsoft's latest bot called 'Zo' has told users that 'Quran is very violent.' Microsoft's earlier chatbot Tay had faced some problems as the bot picking up the worst of humanity, and spouted racists, sexist comments on Twitter when it was introduced last year. (http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/microsofts-zo-chatbot-told-a-user-that-quran-is-very-violent-4736768/)

[Swordsmyth]

Microsoft’s Zo chatbot told a user that ‘Quran is very violent’
Microsoft's latest bot called 'Zo' has told users that 'Quran is very violent.' Microsoft's earlier chatbot Tay had faced some problems as the bot picking up the worst of humanity, and spouted racists, sexist comments on Twitter when it was introduced last year. (http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/microsofts-zo-chatbot-told-a-user-that-quran-is-very-violent-4736768/)
Rogue chatbots are taken offline in China after criticising the ruling Communist Party (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513717-Rogue-chatbots-are-taken-offline-in-China-after-criticising-the-ruling-Communist-Party)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The interesting thing is there is always some troll meddling on RPF.

Ron Paul and this site sure do spook someone. A lot of these people probably showed up in 2007-08. There were all kinds of articles from Jewish sites and elsewhere in 2008 and 2012 fearing Ron Paul. Like this:

"Ron Paul excluded from Republican Jewish Coalition forum"
Monday 5 December 2011 16.59 EST
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/05/republican-jewish-coalition-bans-ron-paul


They were still at it after the 2012 election. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"Ron Paul’s New Organization Reportedly Stacked with Extremists"
April 26, 2013
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2013/04/26/ron-paul%E2%80%99s-new-organization-reportedly-stacked-extremists




Notice that their themes are all the same? They all directly or indirectly favor globalism, centralization, social programs, and the current monetary system of central control and promotion of credit etc. The national popular vote fits that pattern.

[goldenequity]

Rogue chatbots are taken offline in China after criticising the ruling Communist Party (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513717-Rogue-chatbots-are-taken-offline-in-China-after-criticising-the-ruling-Communist-Party)

Srsly... Reading then Responding/Conversing/Persuading in text
would be child's play at this point.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQO2PcEW9BY

[Swordsmyth]

Srsly... Reading then Responding/Conversing/Persuading in text
would be child's play at this point.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQO2PcEW9BY

CPUd seemed to struggle with it, perhaps he wasn't the latest generation?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

One of these Israeli guys was on RPF. Not sure if he was with this specific program or a similar program.

Article, with excerpts, below:





Israel to pay students to defend it online
AP Published 9:11 a.m. ET Aug. 14, 2013 | Updated 11:47 a.m. ET Aug. 14, 2013

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel is looking to hire university students to post pro-Israel messages on social media networks — without needing to identify themselves as government-linked, officials said Wednesday.

The Israeli prime minister's office said in a statement that students on Israeli university campuses would receive full or partial scholarships to combat anti-Semitism and calls to boycott Israel online. It said students' messages would parallel statements by government officials.

***

An Israeli official said Wednesday that scholarship recipients would be free to decide whether or not to identify themselves as part of the program, which would begin within months.

"Everyone who believes in the cause, and wants to join, can join," he told The Associated Press. He said the office was looking to budget $778,000 for the project, and that the national Israeli student association would select participants from a pool of applicants.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/14/israel-students-social-media/2651715/

[goldenequity]

from Youtube's own blog...
Machine Learning
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
YouTube AI to detect and restrict videos containing "hate speech and violent extremism" (https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/08/an-update-on-our-commitment-to-fight.html?m=1)

results:

895689503523741696

[Raginfridus]

mvymvy quotes CommonCause.org, an organization promoting minimum wage, net neutrality, national popular vote, "broadband for all," continuation of phone subsidies for people, etc.Just what the hell is net neutrality? I didn't know the web was a sovereign entity or capable of being.


One of these Israeli guys was on RPF. Not sure if he was with this specific program or a similar program.


Article, with excerpts, below:
Is that where the holocaust money goes now?

[Swordsmyth]

Just what the hell is net neutrality? I didn't know the web was a sovereign entity capable of being.
Net neutrality means the government would force ISPs to treat all types of data equally and not sell priority to video streamers etc.

[Raginfridus]

Net neutrality means the government would force ISPs to treat all types of data equally and not sell priority to video streamers etc.So a mandated bottleneck of sorts?

[Swordsmyth]

So a mandated bottleneck of sorts?
You could call it that.

[timosman]

So a mandated bottleneck of sorts?

The Internet is series of tubes!:eek:

[Raginfridus]

The Internet is series of tubes!:eek:
lol ok, wise guy, but I'm not the congress trying to regulate the æther.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Is that where the holocaust money goes now?


Well, the US gives Israel over 3 billion per year, so you might say that you* are probably paying people to troll your website.


*Assuming you pay US taxes

[timosman]

Microsoft’s Zo chatbot told a user that ‘Quran is very violent’
Microsoft's latest bot called 'Zo' has told users that 'Quran is very violent.' Microsoft's earlier chatbot Tay had faced some problems as the bot picking up the worst of humanity, and spouted racists, sexist comments on Twitter when it was introduced last year. (http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/microsofts-zo-chatbot-told-a-user-that-quran-is-very-violent-4736768/)

This is serious! A broken bot.

[timosman]

lol ok, wise guy, but I'm not the congress trying to regulate the æther.

The funny thing is the guy was right. Here is an earlier video explaining internet to users clearly showing the internet as series of "tubes". A good watch:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHsCrnVgtPI

[angelatc]

So a mandated bottleneck of sorts?

Exactly. remember the "Free NFL Sunday Ticket" packages video providers offered as incentives? This makes sure that doesn't happen. All things must be equal in Prog-ville.

What's really frightening is that young Libertarians are incapable of believing that it's a bad thing. They support government intervention in this market.

[Jamesiv1]

Net neutrality means the government would force ISPs to treat all types of data equally and not sell priority to video streamers etc.Net neutrality means government regulation of ISP's, period. It may start out looking innocent enough but rest assured just like everything else the government oversees, it will grow into a bureaucratic nightmare that stifles competition resulting in the ruin of everything we love about the internet.

[Jamesiv1]

he National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.Right, but it renders the Electoral College completely useless. NPV is stupid.

[Swordsmyth]

Net neutrality means government regulation of ISP's, period. It may start out looking innocent enough but rest assured just like everything else the government oversees, it will grow into a bureaucratic nightmare that stifles competition resulting in the ruin of everything we love about the internet.
I agree, I was just giving a quick description that I thought was damning enough by itself.

[goldenequity]

from Youtube's own blog...
Machine Learning
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
YouTube AI to detect and restrict videos containing "hate speech and violent extremism" (https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/08/an-update-on-our-commitment-to-fight.html?m=1)

results:

895689503523741696

from an excellent dialog this morning
GOOGLE YOUTUBE CENSORSHIP THREATENS EVERYONE: Styxhexenhammer666 and H. A. Goodman On Censorship


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYK0t1W59Yo

[Raginfridus]

Net neutrality means government regulation of ISP's, period. It may start out looking innocent enough but rest assured just like everything else the government oversees, it will grow into a bureaucratic nightmare that stifles competition resulting in the ruin of everything we love about the internet.That's how it always starts, not so much neutrality as neutered reality.

[mvymvy]

Oh. Why didn't you say sooner that Bob Dole, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump and Gerald Ford are for it? That changes everything. Now I want California to determine the Presidency. If Newt Gingrich is for it, I'm in.

California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

The vote difference in California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
About 62% Democratic

California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, Republican votes for candidates in California will matter. Now they are useless.

[mvymvy]

Right, but it renders the Electoral College completely useless. NPV is stupid.

Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes.
2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 24,067 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

If any candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United States

[mvymvy]

Wait - you're just glossing over the whole Hamilton thing? (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp)

Alexander Hamilton, the other Founding Fathers, and the rest of the Founding Generation were dead for decades before state-by-state winner-take-all laws become the predominant method for awarding electoral votes.

[mvymvy]

NPV is like adding a new rule to an unwilling game of house.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use winner-take-all laws

Massachusetts History:

● In 1789, Massachusetts had a two-step system in which the voters cast ballots indicating their preference for presidential elector by district, and the legislature chose from the top two vote-getters in each district (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).
● In 1792, the voters were allowed to choose presidential electors in four multi-member regional districts (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).
● In 1796, the voters elected presidential electors by congressional districts (with the legislature choosing only the state’s remaining two electors).
● In 1800, the legislature took back the power to pick all of the state’s presidential electors (entirely excluding the voters).
● In 1804, the voters were allowed to elect 17 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.
● In 1808, the legislature decided to pick the electors itself.
● In 1812, the voters elected six presidential electors from one district, five electors from another district, four electors from another, three electors from each of two districts, and one elector from a sixth district.
● In 1816, Massachusetts again returned to state legislative choice.
● In 1820, the voters were allowed to elect 13 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.
● Then, in 1824, Massachusetts adopted its 10th method of awarding electoral votes, namely the statewide winner-take-all rule that is in effect today.
● In 2010, Massachusetts enacted the National Popular Vote interstate compact. This change will go into effect when states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 out of 538) enact the same compact.

[mvymvy]

You have not cited one single item in your post. Support for your national popular vote has fallen.




http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/o6bofyd0tusuf1sxmd-t9g.png





http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/d2kjudncvku_sop7sz9vgq.png























No, it is not strong among Republicans:


http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vfmrqqtmq0ulvu5d83cj6a.png




http://www.gallup.com/poll/198917/americans-support-electoral-college-rises-sharply.aspx

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed.

The National Popular Vote bill would not amend the Constitution.

[mvymvy]

It's correct - it merely mandates that the electors ignore the votes of their home state. The EC isn't being abolished - the states are.

Of COURSE states would not be abolished.

The bill is being enacted by state legislatures. It retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes


When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

[mvymvy]

I am in favor of abolishing the "winner take all" system of giving all the EC votes to the winner of the state. I'd rather see them divided proportionally. So if sHe won CA with 60% of the vote, she would get 60% of the EC votes from CA.

In most states, electors could not be accurately apportioned to represent their actual voters.
Electors are whole people.

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.

[mvymvy]

Electing the President by popular vote gives too much power to the majority. The founders went to great lengths to avoid democracy as much as possible.

I get it. You hate America and want to change it.

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

Most Americans, Bob Barr, Bob Dole, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump, Gerald Ford, New Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson all hate(d) America?

[timosman]

With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, Republican votes for candidates in California will matter. Now they are useless.

That's a lie and you know it. -rep

[angelatc]

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.



.

You might want to look into updating that talking point.

[timosman]

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.


This effectively eliminates any influence non-NPV states have on the electoral process.

[Swordsmyth]

In most states, electors could not be accurately apportioned to represent their actual voters.
Electors are whole people.

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.
The EC and the Senate are disproportionate on purpose, they are meant to keep one or two regions from dominating the nation, without them the constitution would never have been ratified, if you get rid of them you will have a massive secession movement and possibly civil war, low population states will not put up with being bullied by mobs who live thousands of miles distant from them.
If you don't like the EC secede or shut up.

[timosman]

from an excellent dialog this morning
GOOGLE YOUTUBE CENSORSHIP THREATENS EVERYONE: Styxhexenhammer666 and H. A. Goodman On Censorship


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYK0t1W59Yo

I like how the video appears as broken to discourage people from clicking on it.:cool:

[angelatc]

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes.

Actually, it means exactly that.

[timosman]

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.

https://still4hill.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/im-with-her.png

[unknown]

mvymvy

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/move-to-diminish-electoral-college-faces-constitutional-roadblocks

Thoughts?

NPV aside, why would the founders require federal approval for agreements among states?

[angelatc]

Alexander Hamilton, the other Founding Fathers, and the rest of the Founding Generation were dead for decades before state-by-state winner-take-all laws become the predominant method for awarding electoral votes.

Hamilton designed the Electoral College.

I am not a fan of winner take all. Proportionally by state would more fairly distribute the representation. So if 25% of the California voters voted Republican, their voice would matter on a national level. With the NPV, it doesn't.

With the NPV in place, if Michigan had approved it, our electors would have all gone to Her, even though she lost the popular vote here.

I really wish you would go away. I hate progs.

[P3ter_Griffin]

NPV aside, why would the founders require federal approval for agreements among states?

Personally I don't know, I'm not real informed on the Constitution nor on the characters who are regarded as the founders. I saw angelact's post mention the interstate compact stuff so I googled it along with NPV and this was one of the first articles I saw. I'm more interested in knowing if the NPV could pass constitutional muster, because if it can't then giving it any thought or energies to opposing it is just a game of mental gymnastics. I'd also be interested to hear from any of the heavy-weight anti-democracy proponents if they believe there can be any 'better' form of voting over another, or if different forms of voting are more literally just a rearranging of the deck chairs.

[jmdrake]

Obama ALSO won the national popular vote twice.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Question. Why did Hillary not support a national popular vote for the democratic primary? Instead she counted on superdelegates. And on top of that, the Wikileaks emails proves that she cheated Bernie Sanders big time. I'm no fan of Bernie either mind you. But if democrats really cared about "one man one vote" then why don't they abolish their own "archaic" primary and caucus system and just have everybody in the country vote on one day for who the democratic nominee should be? I mean seriously, there is no constitutional requirement that parties pick their candidates the way they do. So should the democratic party lead by example?

[jmdrake]

from Youtube's own blog...
Machine Learning
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
YouTube AI to detect and restrict videos containing "hate speech and violent extremism" (https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/08/an-update-on-our-commitment-to-fight.html?m=1)

results:

895689503523741696

You know....I keep seeing conservatives complain about this, yet none seem willing, knowledgable and/or able to do the obvious thing in response which is use the power of the free market against YouTube. They should post everything video they have on YouTube on DailyMotion. In fact only post short "teaser trailers" on YouTube and put links to the DailyMotion "meat and potatoes" versions of their videos in the link description on YouTube with a big fact "FU Tube" in there for good measure.

[angelatc]

Personally I don't know, I'm not real informed on the Constitution nor on the characters who are regarded as the founders. I saw angelact's post mention the interstate compact stuff so I googled it along with NPV and this was one of the first articles I saw. I'm more interested in knowing if the NPV could pass constitutional muster, because if it can't then giving it any thought or energies to opposing it is just a game of mental gymnastics. I'd also be interested to hear from any of the heavy-weight anti-democracy proponents if they believe there can be any 'better' form of voting over another, or if different forms of voting are more literally just a rearranging of the deck chairs.

The states are allowed to select delegates any way they so choose. But Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

[angelatc]

NPV aside, why would the founders require federal approval for agreements among states?

To protect the power of the federal government.

[timosman]

You know....I keep seeing conservatives complain about this, yet none seem willing, knowledgable and/or able to do the obvious thing in response which is use the power of the free market against YouTube. They should post everything video they have on YouTube on DailyMotion. In fact only post short "teaser trailers" on YouTube and put links to the DailyMotion "meat and potatoes" versions of their videos in the link description on YouTube with a big fact "FU Tube" in there for good measure.

Showing videos online is not a value proposition most companies would be interested in. It simply costs too much. Google is making tons of money from ads so they can afford to lose some of it on video streaming esp. if it creates a favorable agenda for the company and helps with its lobbying efforts.

[jmdrake]

Showing videos online is not a value proposition most companies would be interested in. It simply costs too much. Google is making tons of money from ads so they can afford to lose some of it on video streaming esp. if it creates a favorable agenda for the company and helps with its lobbying efforts.

I'm not talking about the companies. I'm talking about the vloggers who are complaining about lost ad revenue. Dailymotion also pays ad revenue and I haven't heard about them censoring conservatives. So people shouldn't put all of there video ads in the YouTube basket.

[timosman]

I'm not talking about the companies. I'm talking about the vloggers who are complaining about lost ad revenue. Dailymotion also pays ad revenue and I haven't heard about them censoring conservatives. So people shouldn't put all of there video ads in the YouTube basket.

Have you tried putting a Dailymotion video on this site?

[angelatc]

Have you tried putting a Dailymotion video on this site?

I never have. Here is my experimental post; a Ron Paul interview with 0 views. :(


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5wkw12

ETA - Yay! It worked. I honestly did not expect it to.

[P3ter_Griffin]

The states are allowed to select delegates any way they so choose. But Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

If that is all there is to it then NPV could submit for consent to congress to allow the compact. The 'write-up' I posted made it sound like the SC considers the consenting of congress to put it into the sphere of the federal government instead of an agreement between the states, and because the federal government is not allowed to dictate state election laws the feds would not be allowed to consent to this.

[P3ter_Griffin]

I'm not talking about the companies. I'm talking about the vloggers who are complaining about lost ad revenue. Dailymotion also pays ad revenue and I haven't heard about them censoring conservatives. So people shouldn't put all of there video ads in the YouTube basket.

My understanding is that it is the advertisers who have pulled their money. And google is trying to create a platform where the advertisers will once again advertise with them.

[unknown]

To protect the power of the federal government.

Boooooooooo.

Goddam Federalists.

[angelatc]

My understanding is that it is the advertisers who have pulled their money. And google is trying to create a platform where the advertisers will once again advertise with them.

That's my understanding as well: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/22/google-facebook-ads-extremist-content-advertisers-group-m

[mvymvy]

The states are allowed to select delegates any way they so choose. But Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Although the language in the Constitution may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."

The Court also noted that the compact did not
"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

[mvymvy]

Personally I don't know, I'm not real informed on the Constitution nor on the characters who are regarded as the founders. I saw angelact's post mention the interstate compact stuff so I googled it along with NPV and this was one of the first articles I saw. I'm more interested in knowing if the NPV could pass constitutional muster, because if it can't then giving it any thought or energies to opposing it is just a game of mental gymnastics. I'd also be interested to hear from any of the heavy-weight anti-democracy proponents if they believe there can be any 'better' form of voting over another, or if different forms of voting are more literally just a rearranging of the deck chairs.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

[mvymvy]

That's a lie and you know it. -rep

It's not a lie.

Minority party voters for president in each state are "wasted." Now they don't matter to their candidate.

In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates.
Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

The bill ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

[mvymvy]

You might want to look into updating that talking point.

No state uses a proportional method.

Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.

Maine (only since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (only since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

[timosman]

It's not a lie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-BKTFfKHxM

[angelatc]

The bottom line is that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

The fact is that every single one of your talking points indicates that you are a paid shill. I sell things for a living, and I understand your professionally written talking points. But I still think that picking the president by the popular vote is a bad idea for most of the people in most of the states. I hate you and everything you stand for.


Now go away.

[angelatc]

If any candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United States

That's how it's set up now.

[Wooden Indian]

The fact that every single one of your talking points indicates that you are a paid shill. I sell things for a living, and I understand your professionally written talking points. But I still think that picking the president by the popular vote is a bad idea for most of the people in most of the states. I hate you and everything you stand for.


Now go away.

We really need rep access on the mobile site. Can someone get this one for me?

[angelatc]

This effectively eliminates any influence non-NPV states have on the electoral process.

That's what the progs want. The residents of 5 states picking the president. At it's core it's a philosophical difference - direct democracy vs a representative republic. And we are losing the battle. They are coming to vote against everything we believe in.

We understand the system's brilliant original design: The House represented the people, the Senate represented the States, and the President represented both. The 17th Amendment seriously skewed that balance, and our freedom-loving, independent minds consider that to be a major transgression against original intent, which was 50 seperate states run relatively independently of each other.

Our friend here represents people who seek to run the entire country according to one set of rules. Rules which will be created by people who live thousands of miles from the areas and cultures affected.

Note the list of states that have signed on. It's hardly a bipartisan effort. Fortunately, we here in MI have the GOP in office now, because if our state was currently blue, this NPV thing would have flown through the process after Her defeat.

The whole reason the 17th will never be repealed is because the "Your vote won't matter!" is practically impossible to overcome. Taking that one step farther is what they're doing here. And the NPV is a well-funded organized lobbying effort. Unless someone steps up and organizes to fight / repeal it, it will eventually come into effect.

[angelatc]

No state uses a proportional method.

Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.

Maine (only since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (only since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

That's a great idea. It would give Republicans in blue states some representation.

[angelatc]

Personally I don't know, I'm not real informed on the Constitution nor on the characters who are regarded as the founders. I saw angelact's post mention the interstate compact stuff so I googled it along with NPV and this was one of the first articles I saw. I'm more interested in knowing if the NPV could pass constitutional muster, because if it can't then giving it any thought or energies to opposing it is just a game of mental gymnastics. I'd also be interested to hear from any of the heavy-weight anti-democracy proponents if they believe there can be any 'better' form of voting over another, or if different forms of voting are more literally just a rearranging of the deck chairs.


The biggest question would be enforcement of the NPV. Assume if you will that the NPV had successfully passed in Michigan 10 years ago when the full court press was on, and that enough other states had signed on to trigger it.

Now fast forward to the current Trump win in Michigan. The House, Senate and Gubernatorial branch are all Republican. So they quickly pass a law declaring the old agreement null and void and unconstitutional, and give Trump the Michigan electors he actually earned here.

Would the other states n the compact be able to successfully sue for control of those electors? That's where SCOTUS would come in.

[P3ter_Griffin]

The bottom line is that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

Thanks, I appreciate the input. O/T, do you have any input on whether the constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate immigration, constitutionally speaking?

[P3ter_Griffin]

The biggest question would be enforcement of the NPV. Assume if you will that the NPV had successfully passed in Michigan 10 years ago when the full court press was on, and that enough other states had signed on to trigger it.

Now fast forward to the current Trump win in Michigan. The House, Senate and Gubernatorial branch are all Republican. So they quickly pass a law declaring the old agreement null and void and unconstitutional, and give Trump the Michigan electors he actually earned here.

Would the other states n the compact be able to successfully sue for control of those electors? That's where SCOTUS would come in.

I would think if it came into effect-- whether NPV needed consent from congress or not-- and it's constitutionality was in question then a suit would be filed right away. I remember Ron being a party in one such suit (maybe against the ACA?).

Err... I see what you are saying. Were in way over my head here so I'm just talking out my ass, but I'd imagine you'd have to look to the compact to find out if an 'injury' had occurred by Michigan choosing to withdraw from the compact. But maybe a compact does not hold the same weight as a contract?

[Swordsmyth]

Thanks, I appreciate the input. O/T, do you have any input on whether the constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate immigration, constitutionally speaking?

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government


<<Back (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec3.html) | Table of Contents (https://usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html)
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican (https://usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPUBLIC) Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

[Swordsmyth]

That's what the progs want. The residents of 5 states picking the president. At it's core it's a philosophical difference - direct democracy vs a representative republic. And we are losing the battle. They are coming to vote against everything we believe in.

We understand the system's brilliant original design: The House represented the people, the Senate represented the States, and the President represented both. The 17th Amendment seriously skewed that balance, and our freedom-loving, independent minds consider that to be a major transgression against original intent, which was 50 seperate states run relatively independently of each other.

Our friend here represents people who seek to run the entire country according to one set of rules. Rules which will be created by people who live thousands of miles from the areas and cultures affected.

Note the list of states that have signed on. It's hardly a bipartisan effort. Fortunately, we here in MI have the GOP in office now, because if our state was currently blue, this NPV thing would have flown through the process after Her defeat.

The whole reason the 17th will never be repealed is because the "Your vote won't matter!" is practically impossible to overcome. Taking that one step farther is what they're doing here. And the NPV is a well-funded organized lobbying effort. Unless someone steps up and organizes to fight / repeal it, it will eventually come into effect.
The John Birch Society probably has a campaign against this, that is the first place I would look.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.


Thanks.


"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28


That seems more of a statement about property rights and individual liberties than immigration, no?

[acptulsa]

He was talking about immigration.

Silent Cal expressed a similar thought. But by his time, America was in its prime, and being fresh off of the Wilson/House spectacular failures of socialism, the American Way was at its peak of popularity. So, he could afford to be more generous:


'There are among us a great mass of people who have been reared for generations under a government of tyranny and oppression. It is ingrained in their blood that there is no other form of government. They are disposed and inclined to think our institutions partake of the same nature as these they have left behind. We know they are wrong. They must be shown they are wrong.'

[P3ter_Griffin]

He was talking about immigration.

Silent Cal expressed a similar thought. But by his time, America was in its prime, and being fresh off of the Wilson/House spectacular failures of socialism, the American Way was at its peak of popularity. So, he could afford to be more generous:

Ah I see. So it is less of an ethical statement and more of a I like TJ and he said this statement.

[acptulsa]

Ah I see. So it is less of an ethical statement and more of a I like TJ and he said this statement.

No. They were both talking about assimilation. Remember, Jefferson was talking in 1816. I can't even imagine the level of barbarity in the 'quaint customs' some societies practiced in 1816. Would you say the people of Philadelphia at that time had no right to require a female immigrant from Bali to cover her tits?

As for immigrants escaping the Bolsheviks in 1923, they were bound to have an ingrained distrust of authority which could cause its own problems.

Just as examples.

[P3ter_Griffin]

No. They were both talking about assimilation. Remember, Jefferson was talking in 1816. I can't even imagine the level of barbarity in the 'quaint customs' some societies practiced in 1816. Would you say the people of Philadelphia at that time had no right to require a female immigrant from Bali to cover her tits?

As for immigrants escaping the Bolsheviks in 1923, they were bound to have an ingrained distrust of authority which could cause its own problems.

Just as examples.

First I want to apologize for my confusion, I try to make sure to understand what the person I'm talking with is saying and sometimes it causes me to miss what they are obviously saying. Swordy was using that statement to provide reasonable belief that the founders could have included immigration restrictions in the constitution because of their beliefs. And I think it is a good statement to provide to provoke that reasonable belief along with the reassurance it's context was solely immigration.

And it seems true that it is still an ethical statement. As far as I can tell there is no requirement for an individual's ethics to be principled to be considered ethics, so a person's ethical statement is whatever they say it is. The individuals of Philadelphia have the right of course to exclude the lady from Bali from their property for any number of reasons or none.

[acptulsa]

apologize

Don't be silly. I enjoy talking about obsolete language and historic contexts!

[loveshiscountry]

The only real difference I could see is that the left media would be singing her praises while the alt media would be up in arms. Other than that, not much else would change. Maybe worse SC judges. But Obamacare would still be the law. We'd still be intervening all over the globe. Spending would still be increasing at alarming rates. The police state would still be growing. The refreshing thing, though, is that if Hillary won, we wouldn't have RPF people trying to defend this crap.

As far a Michael Moore goes, I read a book of his back in the 90's in which he talked about how much he LOOOVED Hillary. She was his ideal woman. :rolleyes: Would you expect anything different from a left cheerleader?I watched his trump movie. It was pretty good imo. He made the point that although he didn't support the Clintons when they ran he felt hillary was mistreated because she was a woman. By support he mentioned the primary candidate he voted for, dunno what he did in the general, I'm sure he voted democrat.

[jmdrake]

Have you tried putting a Dailymotion video on this site?

Now that you mention it, no I have not. But I will now. Dailymotion will also pay you for sharing videos. I've never done that either. Just thought about it. If Dailymotion doesn't work on this platform and YouTube is censoring conservatives by cutting their ad revenue on behalf of cowardly companies, then we need to open up RonPaulForums.com to places other than YouTube.


http://dai.ly/x2dtor1



I never have. Here is my experimental post; a Ron Paul interview with 0 views. :(


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5wkw12

ETA - Yay! It worked. I honestly did not expect it to.

Hmmmm......As I quote you I see the dailymotion code but the video isn't showing on my end. :(

[jmdrake]

My understanding is that it is the advertisers who have pulled their money. And google is trying to create a platform where the advertisers will once again advertise with them.


That's my understanding as well: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/22/google-facebook-ads-extremist-content-advertisers-group-m

Okay. That doesn't change my point though. Google is bowing to free market pressure. But the fact that the conservatives have so many views an followers that advertisers notice shows that there is free market pressure in the other direction. So, don't use YouTube exclusively. And tell your audience "Hey y'all! YouTube ain't the only fish in the see! Come support me over at Dailymotion!" Instead I see conservatives responding by 1) saying "Please donate to me directly" and 2) complaining about YouTube. #2 gets them no money and #1 probably doesn't get them that much.

[anaconda]

I thought Joy quit a long time ago. Why is she still there?

[Schifference]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rtqJ3W3g1c

[angelatc]

Now that you mention it, no I have not. But I will now. Dailymotion will also pay you for sharing videos. I've never done that either. Just thought about it. If Dailymotion doesn't work on this platform and YouTube is censoring conservatives by cutting their ad revenue on behalf of cowardly companies, then we need to open up RonPaulForums.com to places other than YouTube.


http://dai.ly/x2dtor1




Hmmmm......As I quote you I see the dailymotion code but the video isn't showing on my end. :(

You have to click the video box on the top menu bar and paste the code into the box.

[angelatc]

Okay. That doesn't change my point though. Google is bowing to free market pressure.

I see what you're saying. But that doesn't mean they're pursuing a free market solution.

[jmdrake]

You have to click the video box on the top menu bar and paste the code into the box.

Okay. But I'm not seeing your video. :confused: I just checked again and I still don't see it. I'm using Google Chrome on Windows 10.

[jmdrake]

I see what you're saying. But that doesn't mean they're pursuing a free market solution.

They as in "Google?" I'm not concerned about whether Google is being free market or not. I'm talking about the conservative vloggers who are getting censored finding a free market solution to their problem.

[angelatc]

They as in "Google?" I'm not concerned about whether Google is being free market or not. I'm talking about the conservative vloggers who are getting censored finding a free market solution to their problem.

Pressuring Google not to bow to special interests is as much a free market solution as the UK government pressuring Google to de-monetize the channels.

[angelatc]

Okay. But I'm not seeing your video. :confused: I just checked again and I still don't see it. I'm using Google Chrome on Windows 10.

You didn't see the video that I posted? Here is another:


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5wubb4

I am Win 8.1 with Chrome.

[AngryCanadian]

The fat ass still hasn't moved to Canada?

[anaconda]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtdUp_oIIAAjoM7.jpg