Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Same sex marriage is not an additional right. It is equality. It is not your right to define what is and is not marriage.
That is not going on.
That is not going on.
That is not going on.
That is not going on.
That is not going on.
Well, I believe it is going on.
Marriage, as a legal concept, you have no right to define. I have no right to define it either. You can define it according to you, but you have no right to define it legally.
It's not an additional right when a certain group already has that right. It's called "extending" a right to a group that lacks it.
You can believe it's going on, but that doesn't make it true.
People who simply claim to be the wrong gender do not have the right to marry someone of the same gender. My daughter believes she is 18 years old. Should she be allowed to marry even though her birth certificate says she is 12 years old?
Actually, they do. It's called "equality under the law." You don't get to decide who gets to have their rights and who doesn't, and this is not something religion gets to bestow upon itself either.
I doubt your 12 year old daughter experiences severe depression, social withdrawal, and has poor social functioning because she thinks she is 18. Your example is not comparable to those with gender dysphoria. Those with gender dysphoria start out as emotional wrecks, and generally, mostly, and widely improve in strides as they transition.
Your scenario is impossible. It isn't possible to stifle hundreds of millions of votes throughout the rest of the country so that 6 million or 16 million voters in California could make Clinton the winner of the national popular vote by 3 million votes.
The NPVIC ensures that the winner of the electoral vote will be the winner of the national popular vote, and vice versa. It makes for electing the President by national popular vote. As far as electing the President, the NPVIC does not and cannot do anything different than an election by direct popular vote would.
Tens of millions of votes. That's exactly what would happen if you continue on with an electoral college system that not only permits, but requires electors to vote for someone other than who their own state voted for. An elector represents approx 600,000 people. 37 electors represent approx 22.2 million people. Requiring 37 electors to defect because of 3 million people (whether they come from one state or a multitude of states) is basically disenfranchising 22.2 million people.
You may have misunderstood me.
They give good reason for having the popular vote select the President, but ignore the fact that it involves keeping an electoral college, while effectively making it useless. Why do that?
So why keep the middle man?
Except for the fact that it makes the electoral college a complete waste of time. Why not let a direct popular vote simply be a direct popular vote? Why have 51 separate elections if the results in some of those states will be overturned by the results of other states? Why not have "one election, one result"?
So you would deny my daughter the right to marry at 12 years old simply because she isn't as depressed as gay people? That doesn't seem fair to me. What if I want to marry my sister, would you approve? What if I wanted to marry my mother, would you approve? No, I have every right to do everything in my legal power to prevent people from doing those things I don't approve of them doing. And that includes everything from disallowing gay people to marry, down to people trying to urinate on my lawn.
At least with the electoral system, we are protected from the obvious fraudulent undertakings of a dishonest political party who will cheat and lie and do anything in their power to delegitimize an election that is perfectly legitimate.
That is one major stretch. How did you even make that jump?
No, but I wouldn't stop you, tell you how wrong it is, or condemn you to Hell.
You can complain to someone, try to talk them out of it, but you have no legal authority to decide who has rights and who doesn't.
You have no legal right to prevent gay marriages. That's not even your life, yet you get so worked up you have to get involved with other people's private lives. Why not live your own life instead of letting others do it for you?
Good, and I will do everything in my power to prevent any man from marrying another man, or women from marrying other women. What do you have against minds that are not fully developed? I know a lot of democrats whose minds are not fully developed.
I don't see the electoral college affording anyone any more protection against cheating as a popular vote would.
Maybe. But it doesn't matter.
At this point, if the popular vote counted, Hillary and the corrupt democratic party would have won. Once we delete all of the ineligible votes from her win she will be discovered to have actually lost.
Example, Hillary's people cheated. They even tried to pursuade the electors to change their votes and not vote according to the will of the people they represent. But the electors are smarter than those people and it turned out that they instead turned on the cheater. I think the electoral college is perfect. Although I do believe the big cities should get fewer votes. They are not representative of the rest of the country. It's the whole country that matters, the people who actually work for a living.
Different rules would mean different safeguards against cheating. I like the idea of standardizing voting methods nationwide, for example.
But there's a chance it could have gone the other way. A very slim chance, but a chance none the less.
You either think it's perfect, or you don't. Can't have it both ways.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. There does not exist “an electoral college system that not only permits but requires electors to vote for someone other than who their own state voted for.” The Constitution gives to states plenary authority to choose how to award its electoral votes. Since the ratification of the Constitution, Massachusetts, for instance, has enacted 11 different methods for choosing and determining how its electors shall cast their votes. Currently in Maine and Nebraska, electors vote for the candidate who received the most votes in their district, not the winner of the state-wide popular vote. In all other states, electors pledge to vote for the candidate who wins the state-wide popular vote.
False. In California an elector represents nearly 700,000 people; in Wyoming an elector represents less than 190,000. 2012 - 2020 Federal Representation by People per House Seat, Senate Seat, and Electors
There is no "moral dilemma" in states enacting the NPVIC. Its purpose is to achieve the same effect as electing the President by the national popular vote.
The purpose of the NPVIC is to achieve the same effect as electing the President by national popular vote, but without the needless difficulty, expense, and time required to try to pass a constitutional amendment.
Where the hell did you get that idea?
You wouldn't know who wins the popular vote until just shortly before the electoral college meets in December... so we'd still be calling states on Election Day the same way we do now... and then those electors in states who agree to switch based on the national popular vote will be snatching victories out of the hands of states who voted the other way.
It would be better to have an actual popular vote.
In relation to its own population. But the true value of an electoral vote is constant. The fact that those electoral votes were distributed in a way that gives big states less EVs than they should have and small states more EVs than they should have just gives us another example of the unfairness of the system.
Except you're not having just one election. You're still having 51 elections, and turning the winners from certain states into losers.
Instead, we'll go through the needless difficulty, expense, and time required to maintain the facade of an Electoral College while ignoring its function completely. Have it or don't. But to have it and not use it is dishonest.
