California strong arm

[Left Coast]

Incorrect, you can argue it all day but it hasn't passed yet because they know its unconstitutional, and they are just bluffing.

Mkay. That said, I'm super excited to hear that you're so passionate about voting rights. I'm sure you will join progressives then, in opposing right-wing efforts to actually restrict voting rights every way from Sunday, e.g. restricting early voting, restricting the hours that polls are open on voting day, reducing the number of polling places, implementing voter ID laws that disproportionally disadvantage people of color, and defending an undemocratic electoral college system which disenfranchises voters in more populous states.

 

[Enoch07]

Mkay. That said, I'm super excited to hear that you're so passionate about voting rights. I'm sure you will join progressives then, in opposing right-wing efforts to actually restrict voting rights every way from Sunday, e.g. restricting early voting, restricting the hours that polls are open on voting day, reducing the number of polling places, implementing voter ID laws that disproportionally disadvantage people of color, and defending an undemocratic electoral college system which disenfranchises voters in more populous states.

Let's compromise. And my compromise gives you 2 things you want.

1. Take Trump off of California ballot

2. Take electoral college votes from California.

We both win! And both can easily be arranged.

 

[Left Coast]

Let's compromise. And my compromise gives you 2 things you want.

1. Take Trump off of California ballot

2. Take electoral college votes from California.

We both win! And both can easily be arranged.

I'll do you one better:

1. Take Trump off every ballot in the country.

2. Take away the electoral college system altogether and replace it with a national popular vote.

Hell, I'd even take JUST #2.

You're right, I DO love "compromise!"

 

[Enoch07]

I'll do you one better:

1. Take Trump off every ballot in the country.

2. Take away the electoral college system altogether and replace it with a national popular vote.

Hell, I'd even take JUST #2.

You're right, I DO love "compromise!"

You obviously don't know what compromise means.

I know you're being sarcstic.

But to accurately be sarcastic you would have to give in a little to properly pull off the jokes otherwise it's just lame.

 

[dianaiad]

You might want to take a look at this.

National Popular Vote

The way things are now, you being a California conservative are quite disenfranchised when it comes to the presidential election. That's because of the winner take all element of the state races for US president. As long as the Democrats can reliably get 50.01% of the vote, you may as well not bother. Same with the other conservative voters in your state, and there are many millions.

Like Californian conservatives, Texans more liberal than the majority have the problem of being disenfranchised by the current rigged system. The result of all this voter disenfranchisement is the sort of voter apathy you described in another thread. If you can't vote for president, why take time out of your busy schedule on voting day?

I believe that a huge element of the infamous US voter apathy, and resulting corruption in government, is a because of this nonsense. And the crap is an historical holdover from a country that didn't expect the POTUS to be involved in the USA domestic affairs. Now we do, so I think it's time "We the People" started electing the president.

If so, your vote would actually matter, when now it doesn't.
Tom

My personal vote wouldn't matter in a strict democratic election, either. With that, the POTUS would ALWAYS be a liberal, because s/he would be elected by the folks who live on the edges of the nation; the coastal voters. Who are, IMO, completely unaware of where their food and other commodities actually come from, or what is involved in producing them...who have their own culture that has little to do with the majority of the states.

No state without an Atlantic or Pacific beach line would have any say in a presidential election, ever again. Everybody else would really be 'fly over country."

Where my vote DOES matter is in the local elections that everybody skips as 'unimportant.' You know the ones, where the names on the ballot are for dog catcher or mayor or city council or the head of the local education board, or local funding/tax laws...city, county and state.

In fact, given the number of people who blow off those elections, I once figured out that my one vote decides the issue for nearly 75 people. That's a lot of power in a small community, and it's even a fair amount of power in a county.

.......and those ARE direct democracies.

It is in these small areas where I am anything BUT disenfranchised, because the way these things are ignored, I make decisions for one heck of a lot of liberal voters.

 

[Left Coast]

You obviously don't know what compromise means.

I know you're being sarcstic.

But to accurately be sarcastic you would have to give in a little to properly pull off the jokes otherwise it's just lame.

I'll be sure to look to your razor-sharp wit in the future for guidance on proper humor.

 

[Shiranui117]

You might want to take a look at this.

National Popular Vote

The way things are now, you being a California conservative are quite disenfranchised when it comes to the presidential election. That's because of the winner take all element of the state races for US president. As long as the Democrats can reliably get 50.01% of the vote, you may as well not bother. Same with the other conservative voters in your state, and there are many millions.

Like Californian conservatives, Texans more liberal than the majority have the problem of being disenfranchised by the current rigged system. The result of all this voter disenfranchisement is the sort of voter apathy you described in another thread. If you can't vote for president, why take time out of your busy schedule on voting day?

I believe that a huge element of the infamous US voter apathy, and resulting corruption in government, is a because of this nonsense. And the crap is an historical holdover from a country that didn't expect the POTUS to be involved in the USA domestic affairs. Now we do, so I think it's time "We the People" started electing the president.

If so, your vote would actually matter, when now it doesn't.
Tom

My fix to the US electoral college would be to get rid of the winner-take-all system. If every state were a split-delegate state like Nebraska and Maine, then every state would see both conservative and liberal voices heard--even California would see certain regions go red. The cities wouldn't be able to drown out the rural areas.

 

[dianaiad]

Mkay. That said, I'm super excited to hear that you're so passionate about voting rights. I'm sure you will join progressives then, in opposing right-wing efforts to actually restrict voting rights every way from Sunday, e.g. restricting early voting, restricting the hours that polls are open on voting day, reducing the number of polling places, implementing voter ID laws that disproportionally disadvantage people of color, and defending an undemocratic electoral college system which disenfranchises voters in more populous states.

How do voter ID laws 'disproportionately disadvantage' people of color?

I mean...really?

The only people such laws would 'disadvantage' are people who shouldn't be voting. You know...non-citizens? It's not even a little bit hard to get an ID. This has nothing whatsoever to do with skin color. Not. One. Thing. If one is able to get the ID required to get food stamps or WIC or any other aid that those 'below the poverty line' get, then they can get the ID required to vote. In fact, it's the SAME ID.

...and if you take away the electoral college, you disenfranchise all the voters in 38 of the states (as per the last election). That means only 15 (fifteen if you count Hawaii and Alaska) decided that election. Everybody else could just go pound sand. THAT is disenfranchisement.

..........and it's one of the reasons that the US told England to bug off, now, isn't it? Because England was making the decisions for the colonies, and the people of the colonies had absolutely no say in what happened to them?

Given the relative populations, if the people of those colonies had the right to vote for what happened to them, they would still be unable to have that 'say,' because, well....there were a lot more people in England voting on what happened in America than there were Americans to vote in their own interests.

Without the electoral college, then, what we would have is the 'United States of the Coastlines" and everybody else would be colonies without a say, except to slavishly agree with what the beach states wanted to do.

And yes, I AM in support of the electoral college, even though it absolutely disenfranchises ME, as a conservative in California.

 

[dianaiad]

My fix to the US electoral college would be to get rid of the winner-take-all system. If every state were a split-delegate state like Nebraska and Maine, then every state would see both conservative and liberal voices heard--even California would see certain regions go red. The cities wouldn't be able to drown out the rural areas.

Actually, that might work. California, believe it or not, would send a LOT of conservative delegates to the college. What goes for the nation also goes for California; Los Angeles and San Francisco (and the other counties with coast lines) went blue, but the majority of the state went purple/red. Even the east third of LA county went 'red." The trouble is, most of the population of the state resides along the coast, in LA, Orange County and San Francisco. Central California (where all the food is grown) has remained stubbornly red.

But cows, artichokes, walnut and citrus trees don't vote, and if you have more trees than people, well....elections go the way the apartment dwellers in LA want, not the way the orchardists and ranchers do.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Or maybe they would just release their tax returns.

Remember this is something every single Presidental candidate has done since Nixon. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask.

It's a tradition it's not mandatory. Trump's not the first president who refused btw.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's also not a requirement for office. If he chooses not to release his tax returns, it's honestly not that big of a deal. He's not breaking any laws, he's just breaking with a tradition that's younger than my mother.

That's the issue I have. The practice by socialist Democrats to try to strong-arm anybody and just about anything to conform to their political views and opinions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's also not a requirement for office. If he chooses not to release his tax returns, it's honestly not that big of a deal. He's not breaking any laws, he's just breaking with a tradition that's younger than my mother.

I'm guessing he probably didn't want to release them because he didn't pay much if at all in taxes through the use of loopholes.

It's no secret the wealthy does that, although it is a bit upsetting that I cannot do the exact same thing with my money because I'm not in that extravagant tier of wealth.

 

[Left Coast]

How do voter ID laws 'disproportionately disadvantage' people of color?

I mean...really?

Really.

How Voter ID Laws Discriminate Against Racial Minorities

The only people such laws would 'disadvantage' are people who shouldn't be voting.

False.

It's not even a little bit hard to get an ID.

False. You live in evil socialist California, remember? Hint: other states make it harder than we do.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with skin color. Not. One. Thing.

The evidence indicates otherwise.

...and if you take away the electoral college, you disenfranchise all the voters in 38 of the states (as per the last election). That means only 15 (fifteen if you count Hawaii and Alaska) decided that election. Everybody else could just go pound sand. THAT is disenfranchisement.

LOL. No. Genuinely losing an election because your team simply has fewer voters is not "disenfranchisement." It's losing, fair and square.

Without the electoral college, then, what we would have is the 'United States of the Coastlines" and everybody else would be colonies without a say, except to slavishly agree with what the beach states wanted to do.

You can make this argument to dispute the results of virtually any democratic election, local, state, or national. Why should the people in the heavily populated part of town get "so much say" over what happens to the people in the less populated part of town?

The reality of life is that there are some places where lots of people live, and some places where not very many people live. Therefore, in fair democratic elections, the places where lots of people live are going to have lots more voters. That is completely unbiased and fair. Every vote carries equal weight, regardless of your address. That is the opposite of what we have now, where the voters in small/sparsely populated states are given disproportionately more weight in deciding who wins the presidency. It is irrational, unfair, and undemocratic.

And yes, I AM in support of the electoral college, even though it absolutely disenfranchises ME, as a conservative in California.

Then that is your choice to make. I don't think most people, given the choice, would want their vote to be disenfranchised.

 

[fantome profane]

It's a tradition it's not mandatory. Trump's not the first president who refused btw.

Yes I know. The last President who refused was Nixon.

And this tradition started because of Nixon.

It makes me wonder what changes will come about because of Trump.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes I know. The last President who refused was Nixon.

And this tradition started because of Nixon.

It makes me wonder what changes will come about because of Trump.

So people need to stop acting like it's mandatory.

 

[fantome profane]

So people need to stop acting like it's mandatory.

Maybe one of the changes that will come about from this is that it will become law.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe one of the changes that will come about from this is that it will become law.

I wonder what that will lead to?

 

[Shiranui117]

Really.

How Voter ID Laws Discriminate Against Racial Minorities

False.

False. You live in evil socialist California, remember? Hint: other states make it harder than we do.

You can apply for a passport online or at your local post office, and you can also fill out an application for a driver's license online. It's not hard at all to get a photo ID. The BMV is in the next town over and you don't have a car? You probably have a friend or family member who does and wouldn't mind driving you for the price of gas or in exchange for a couple beers or for the price of catching up. Everybody knows where their BMV or post office are, and if they don't, it takes them 10 seconds to google it. They don't lack the ability to get a photo ID, which most banks require for the purposes of identity verification anyway.

The reality of life is that there are some places where lots of people live, and some places where not very many people live. Therefore, in fair democratic elections, the places where lots of people live are going to have lots more voters. That is completely unbiased and fair. Every vote carries equal weight, regardless of your address. That is the opposite of what we have now, where the voters in small/sparsely populated states are given disproportionately more weight in deciding who wins the presidency. It is irrational, unfair, and undemocratic.

The danger in this is that people who live in urban communities have a fundamentally different way of life than those in rural communities. If only people in urban communities are having their voices heard in presidential elections, then nationwide laws will be passed that work just fine in the cities, but would be absolutely disastrous in rural communities where many of the goods that our country needs to survive are produced. For example, strict laws on gun ownership are common sense in the city, but in rural areas where the police may be 5-10 minutes away or more, not having a gun in your house in case of a home invasion can get you killed.

It's important that every constituency in this country have a voice and representation at the highest levels of government, especially when electing the President. A national popular vote with no respect to how people vote in different states and regions will inevitably disenfranchise most of middle America.

 

[Enoch07]

I'll be sure to look to your razor-sharp wit in the future for guidance on proper humor.

Excellent

 

[Woberts]

A national popular vote with no respect to how people vote in different states and regions will inevitably disenfranchise most of middle America.

A popular vote equals less disenfranchised compared to the electoral college. It is known.