Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
The Democrats may end up with a disadvantage... many/most states that were solidly democratic will follow the law and vote according to popular vote, while states that were republican will stick to the "all or nothing local vote".
Click to expand...
Not sure which way you're assuming, but the law doesn't go into effect until enough states pass it that have > 270 electoral votes.
 
Segnosaur said:
I'm not opposed to the concept.

But, if you look at the current map, the states where the law has been passed are states that usually vote Democrat. (the most notable ones are California and NY). On the other hand, states where the issue hasn't even been looked into include solidly republican states like Texas. (And while some of the other solid republican states may have had hearings on the bill, that is far from having a bill enacted into law.)

The Democrats may end up with a disadvantage... many/most states that were solidly democratic will follow the law and vote according to popular vote, while states that were republican will stick to the "all or nothing local vote".

The law supposedly comes into effect only when its passed by enough states representing a majority of the votes (Although I don't know what would happen if the law is passed and one or more states later decide to opt out.)
Click to expand...

Another approach is that each state can decide how it's electorial college votes are decided; that is left to the individual states by the Constitution, there is no rule for winner takes all. In fact two states have split electorial college votes,each candidate gets a percentage of the votes propotinal to his poular vote. Maybe launching campaigns in individual states to get rid of the Winner take all rule would be a more practical approach.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
The Democrats may end up with a disadvantage... many/most states that were solidly democratic will follow the law and vote according to popular vote, while states that were republican will stick to the "all or nothing local vote".
Click to expand...
Not sure which way you're assuming, but the law doesn't go into effect until enough states pass it that have > 270 electoral votes.
Click to expand...
I know that (I mentioned it in the next paragraph in the post you quoted). My concern was what happens if a state withdraws from the agreement. (Admittedly I haven't really looked at the text of the bill to see if that possibility is covered.)

I took a look at the wikipedia page... there are some people who claim that the agreement might require either a constitutional amendment or approval by congress (although opinions on each differ.) Would be a mess if an election were handled under this law, one party (probably the republicans) lost the popular vote, then issued a constitutional challenge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Legality
 
dudalb said:
Another approach is that each state can decide how it's electorial college votes are decided; that is left to the individual states by the Constitution, there is no rule for winner takes all. In fact two states have split electorial college votes,each candidate gets a percentage of the votes propotinal to his poular vote. Maybe launching campaigns in individual states to get rid of the Winner take all rule would be a more practical approach.
Click to expand...

You are half right. Two states, namely Nebraska and Maine assign 2 electoral votes based on whoever wins the popular vote in that state. Their other votes (3 in Nebraska's case, 2 in Maines) are given to whomever wins each of their congressional districts, NOT "each candidate gets a percentage of the votes propotinal to his poular vote." It sounds well and good, except for gerrymandering could lead to a candidate winning the majority of electoral votes in a state without even taking the popular vote.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes, someone who foolishly stayed home on 2016 (or spoiled their ballot or voted for a 3rd party) because they thought Clinton and Trump were somehow the same truly was an idiot.
Click to expand...

Some of us libertarians truly have views that can't be accounted for better in one party or another.
 
lomiller said:
LOL the idiot still thinks tariffs are not paid for by Americans and/or American companies. Ford recently said they took a $1 billion hit to their bottom line due to tariffs, Caterpillar didn’t give an exact number but also said they are suffering major cost increases.

The obvious solution for these companies is going to be to move their production outside the US so they don’t get hit by the tariffs. If the orange idiot decides to put tariffs on vehicles/equipment as well it drives up costs not just for consumers but in mining, construction, etc killing job growth.
Click to expand...

At work we had a pricing summit across sales and corporate accounts. The new tariffs kept coming up as a cost driver.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1054830241343066113
Click to expand...


I addressed this some days ago:

Elagabalus said:
Trump tweets

"Sadly, it looks like Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States. Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in. I have alerted Border Patrol and Military that this is a National Emergy. Must change laws!"

"Every time you see a Caravan, or people illegally coming, or attempting to come, into our Country illegally, think of and blame the Democrats for not giving us the votes to change our pathetic Immigration Laws! Remember the Midterms! So unfair to those who come in legally."

“Shock report: US paying more for illegal immigrant births than Trump’s wall”


Middle Easterners? People from Belize? :p
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
It's still not called the Democrat Party, so while it may be trivial, it's not incorrect.
Click to expand...

Well..... I was gonna let it go but if you're going to double-down on your wrongness.

No. The post you're responding to is a series of quotes in which Trump repeatedly uses the word Democrats to describe people in the Democratic Party. He never once uses xxxxxxxx Party. The proper way to refer to a member of the Democratic Party is "a Democrat".
 
BobTheCoward said:
Yes, someone who foolishly stayed home on 2016 (or spoiled their ballot or voted for a 3rd party) because they thought Clinton and Trump were somehow the same truly was an idiot.
Click to expand...
Some of us libertarians truly have views that can't be accounted for better in one party or another.
Click to expand...
While neither party would have been a perfect 'match' for your views, you had the responsibility to evaluate what Trump was like (especially his racism) and considered "I don't think the Democrats truly match my ideals, but I really don't think the country will be served by a bigot in the white house". You weren't going to get a libertarian in office anyways, so the attempt to prevent a blatant racist from being president should have been an acceptable secondary goal.

The whole "neither party matches my views" is a cop out.

A racist was put into the white house. A man who labeled neo-nazis as "fine people" and who had innocent children locked in cages. You could have voted against him, but you decided not to. You are partially culpable.
 
Segnosaur said:
While neither party would have been a perfect 'match' for your views, you had the responsibility to evaluate what Trump was like (especially his racism) and considered "I don't think the Democrats truly match my ideals, but I really don't think the country will be served by a bigot in the white house". You weren't going to get a libertarian in office anyways, so the attempt to prevent a blatant racist from being president should have been an acceptable secondary goal.

The whole "neither party matches my views" is a cop out.

A racist was put into the white house. A man who labeled neo-nazis as "fine people" and who had innocent children locked in cages. You could have voted against him, but you decided not to. You are partially culpable.
Click to expand...

Dumb demogogue versus smart liberal. That is pretty equally bad.

But as I mentioned before, I just vote whatever my wife wants.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
Well..... I was gonna let it go but if you're going to double-down on your wrongness.

No. The post you're responding to is a series of quotes in which Trump repeatedly uses the word Democrats to describe people in the Democratic Party. He never once uses xxxxxxxx Party. The proper way to refer to a member of the Democratic Party is "a Democrat".
Click to expand...

However, he does refer to the party as the "Democrat Party", which I think was the point.
 
WTFF? Nobody wants to hear about the opioid addiction problem at this moment. And to have his wife do the first words about the potential bombings? Geez...

She's still talking. I wonder if he's going to mention the crisis at all.
 
lobosrul5 said:
You are half right. Two states, namely Nebraska and Maine assign 2 electoral votes based on whoever wins the popular vote in that state. Their other votes (3 in Nebraska's case, 2 in Maines) are given to whomever wins each of their congressional districts, NOT "each candidate gets a percentage of the votes propotinal to his poular vote." It sounds well and good, except for gerrymandering could lead to a candidate winning the majority of electoral votes in a state without even taking the popular vote.
Click to expand...

I agree this is not a good system. All votes should be proportional within the state, not by congressional districts.

I would also be open to the idea of getting rid of congressional districts and going with proportional representation within the states based on a statewide vote. But that gives me a little problem, because generally I like to consider candidates as individuals rather than by the party they are a member of. I'm not sure how to do proportional representation and individual candidates at the same time in the House.
 
alfaniner said:
WTFF? Nobody wants to hear about the opioid addiction problem at this moment. And to have his wife do the first words about the potential bombings? Geez...

She's still talking. I wonder if he's going to mention the crisis at all.
Click to expand...

Crisis? That is risible.
 
Segnosaur said:
I know that (I mentioned it in the next paragraph in the post you quoted). My concern was what happens if a state withdraws from the agreement. (Admittedly I haven't really looked at the text of the bill to see if that possibility is covered.)

I took a look at the wikipedia page... there are some people who claim that the agreement might require either a constitutional amendment or approval by congress (although opinions on each differ.) Would be a mess if an election were handled under this law, one party (probably the republicans) lost the popular vote, then issued a constitutional challenge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Legality
Click to expand...
Nothing is ever simple, huh?
 
lobosrul5 said:
You are half right. Two states, namely Nebraska and Maine assign 2 electoral votes based on whoever wins the popular vote in that state. Their other votes (3 in Nebraska's case, 2 in Maines) are given to whomever wins each of their congressional districts, NOT "each candidate gets a percentage of the votes propotinal to his poular vote." It sounds well and good, except for gerrymandering could lead to a candidate winning the majority of electoral votes in a state without even taking the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Look, I support abolishing the electorial college altogether, but that is simply not happening. AI think getting rid of the Winner take All porvisions is a good mitigation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom