Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

If you can't win, just change the rules!

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
bmw
Posts: 6725
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by bmw » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:12 pm

The Democrats are desperate. They're tired of being the minority (yes they have the House, but overall they're still the minority) ; they're tired of not holding a lot of power; and most of all, they're tired of losing elections.

Their idea? Just change the rules!

-Lower the voting age to 16
-Get rid of the Electoral College
-Add more seats to the Supreme Court and/or impose term limits on judges

I'd post links, but all you have to do is watch the news. These are all ideas being pushed by people in power in the left right now. And not coincidentally, each and every one, if enacted, would favor Democrats.



zzand
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by zzand » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:34 pm

Doesn't it take a vote of the people aka us to change the constitution to disband the Electoral College? 16 is too young and the court is fine the way it is although I would support retirement at a certain age...



Deleted User 9015

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by Deleted User 9015 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:43 pm

The whole voting age thing, the 16-18 age range is a topic of debate about a lot of things. Personally, I think 17 should be the federal standard for everything. Just make it the federal standard for drinking, smoking, registering for service, property ownership, etc. 17 year olds are retarded but 18, 19 year olds are, too.

The electoral college still serves purpose, but from where I sit, it seems that we could benefit from exploring a like system. Absent of any other bright ideas, don't support change. Popular vote has negative implications and there needs to be a mechanism encourage some reason for people to campaign in small swing states.

Term limits are a good idea in general. Old dipshits get in on name recognition or party and then keep get voted in and never do a damn thing. Perhaps term limits will bring fresh ideas. We're just talking about judges here though, but still for judges, term limits are good. More seats and I'd be nervous about having too many cooks.



Matt
Posts: 9848
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by Matt » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:42 pm

zzand wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:34 pm
Doesn't it take a vote of the people aka us to change the constitution to disband the Electoral College? 16 is too young and the court is fine the way it is although I would support retirement at a certain age...
The idea that I've read is not about abolishing the electoral college but rather changing the rules. The National Popular Vote (NPV) aims to get enough states to pledge their electors to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally. If enough states (270 EVs worth or greater) adopt the NPV, the election becomes a de facto popularity contest.


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

bmw
Posts: 6725
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by bmw » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:54 pm

Neckbeard wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:43 pm
The electoral college still serves purpose, but from where I sit, it seems that we could benefit from exploring a like system. Absent of any other bright ideas, don't support change. Popular vote has negative implications and there needs to be a mechanism encourage some reason for people to campaign in small swing states.
My idea (which I think I've posted in here before) for reform has long been this: Keep the Electoral College. Keep the 538 electoral votes. But allocate some of them to winner-take-all and the rest proportionally - specifically:

-2 votes winner-take-all for each state;
-Proportional allocation for the remaining votes in each state based on the statewide vote totals;
-Have a 10 percent threshold whereby only candidates who received at least 10 percent of the vote in the state are eligible for electoral votes

Using Michigan in 2016 for example:
-Michigan has 16 electoral votes.
-Trump won 47.6 to 47.3. He gets the 2 winner-take-all votes.
-Hillary and Trump each get 7 of the 14 remaining electoral votes.
-Final allocation - Trump 9, Hillary 7

Such a system would:

-leave small states which currently have 3 electoral votes completely unaffected (the winner will always get all 3 electoral votes in these states)
-still reward a candidate for winning a state
-make it so your vote in a state like CA, TX, or NY actually counts



tapeisrolling
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: go ahead, I'm listening

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by tapeisrolling » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:51 pm

A better apportionment of the Electoral votes might be per votes. The current system gives States a min.of 3 one each for Senator and Rep. In Wyoming that works out to 1 vote for about every 500k people. If you used the same ratio of E. vote per 500k then just LA County in Cal. would have 270 E.votes!

So the current set-up will enable a minimum of 17 States elect the President and not even be close to having 40% of the total vote. Would it not be easier to manipulate a vote in a small State VS a large State due to sheer numbers to grab the E. votes?
I always thought it was the majority rules.



bmw
Posts: 6725
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by bmw » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:21 pm

tapeisrolling wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:51 pm
...The current system gives States a min.of 3 one each for Senator and Rep. In Wyoming that works out to 1 vote for about every 500k people. If you used the same ratio of E. vote per 500k then just LA County in Cal. would have 270 E.votes!

So the current set-up will enable a minimum of 17 States elect the President and not even be close to having 40% of the total vote. Would it not be easier to manipulate a vote in a small State VS a large State due to sheer numbers to grab the E. votes?
I always thought it was the majority rules.
The theory is to give some say as to who is President to the state as an entity as opposed to purely 1 person 1 vote. I suppose you can disagree with that philosophy but I have no problem with it since we do already directly elect our representatives in both the House and the Senate. Our founders never intended this country to be a pure democracy.



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10104
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by TC Talks » Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:50 pm

Let's just make it a popular vote across the nation... State elections the same way.


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

Deleted User 4520

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by Deleted User 4520 » Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:11 pm

Always agreed with a popular vote. The electoral college is outdated I think. As for the other things, they should stay the way they are.



zzand
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by zzand » Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:15 pm

So basically you are ok with two states electing the President as they house the majority of the population? You really want to start a shit show, take away the right and yes it is a right, for every state to have a somewhat equal say in electing the top job. I will sit back and watch, will be fun. it is fine the way it is...Remember we are not now nor have we ever been a democracy. Why is that so hard to remember?



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by Bryce » Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:25 pm

TC Talks wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:50 pm
Let's just make it a popular vote across the nation... State elections the same way.
Nope.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by Bryce » Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:26 pm

TheForce wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:11 pm
Always agreed with a popular vote. The electoral college is outdated I think. As for the other things, they should stay the way they are.
Nope!

There is a reason we have the electoral college. The COTUS would have never been ratified without it.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

Deleted User 8570

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by Deleted User 8570 » Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:09 pm

zzand wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:15 pm
So basically you are ok with two states electing the President as they house the majority of the population? You really want to start a shit show, take away the right and yes it is a right, for every state to have a somewhat equal say in electing the top job. I will sit back and watch, will be fun. it is fine the way it is...Remember we are not now nor have we ever been a democracy. Why is that so hard to remember?
It would force the GOP to be a national party rather than a rural one. To do that they would have to develop ideas that appeal to a broad swath of the population which is something they simply don’t have right now... so popular vote only elections would benefit the country enormously and force the parties to truly compete for votes rather than banking on a set number of states and only focusing on 10 or so states for the election season...



TC Shuts Up
Posts: 2314
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:10 pm

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by TC Shuts Up » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:10 pm

16 year olds have neither the critical thinking skills nor the social maturity to vote. Why else would they permanently mark their bodies with Body "Art" that is at least as permanent as a permanent marker? Frankly, it's associated with Nazis.


Disagreeing with Communists is NOT an impeachable offense.

Never eat Sushi past its expiration date.

Those who refuse to drain the swamp are doomed to drown in it.

Deleted User 8570

Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!

Post by Deleted User 8570 » Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:57 pm

TC Shuts Up wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:10 pm
16 year olds have neither the critical thinking skills nor the social maturity to vote. Why else would they permanently mark their bodies with Body "Art" that is at least as permanent as a permanent marker? Frankly, it's associated with Nazis.
Why did sailors get anchors on their arms during WW2? It was just as stupid and looked dumb when it sagged and faded... no complaints about that unorthodox practice... as for Nazi whatever... what are you talking about?



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic