Acceptable registrations in the queue through June 3 at 5:00p 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
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!
If you can't win, just change the rules!
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.
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.
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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...
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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.
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.
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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:Neckbeard wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:43 pmThe 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.
-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
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:07 pm
- Location: go ahead, I'm listening
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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.
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.
Re: If you can't win, just change the 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.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.
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
Let's just make it a popular vote across the nation... State elections the same way.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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.
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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?
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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.
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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.
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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...zzand wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:15 pmSo 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?
-
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:10 pm
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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.
Never eat Sushi past its expiration date.
Those who refuse to drain the swamp are doomed to drown in it.
Re: If you can't win, just change the rules!
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?TC Shuts Up wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:10 pm16 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.