Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 157

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

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    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.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 08-11-2017 at 05:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    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.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    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.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    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.

  8. #36
    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/...tion-senators/



    //
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 08-11-2017 at 05:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    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.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    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?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    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
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 08-11-2017 at 05:23 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    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.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    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 ^^^.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.

  17. #44
    the talking points here are found verbatim on this site, as is a rebuttal:


    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.

  18. #45
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2017/05/...70830515772583

    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.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    NPV is facially unconstitutional
    That's what the opponents of NPV think. What if we have a left leaning SCOTUS who will decide otherwise.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    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.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    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!"



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    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.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    . . . 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).

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    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.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    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.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    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?

  28. #54
    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.



  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    It does not abolish the Electoral College.
    How can you say this?

  30. #56
    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.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    How can you say this?
    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.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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?

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Electoral College Elects Donald Trump As President
    By DamianTV in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-19-2016, 07:09 PM
  2. Michael Moore Explains Why TRUMP Will Win
    By ProBlue33 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 10-28-2016, 01:28 PM
  3. Michael Moore: Sadly, Trump Will Win
    By AuH20 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-21-2016, 04:01 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 11:11 PM
  5. Electoral College: Democrats 200 Republicans 189 Leaners 111 Toss-Up 38
    By Bradley in DC in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2008, 11:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •