The Electoral College Should Be Abolished?

[JakofHearts]

Uh-huh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The right to discard the 1st amendment.

Today (as for virtually all of history) the biggest threat to freedom of religion is other competing religions that have the power of the state behind them. While certainly not all Christians are threats to freedom of religion, the people who do try to undermine freedom of religion in the US are almost exclusively Christian.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good, and I will do everything in my power to prevent any man from marrying another man, or women from marrying other women.

You have no legal power to do this.

What do you have against minds that are not fully developed?

The brain isn't fully developed until about the age of 21. Before then, in its state of immaturity, the "higher functionings" are the last thing to develop, and is the reason teenagers are known for being reckless because their brains are not quit developed enough to have a firm grasp of long term consequences.

I can't condemn anyone to hell, but I sure can show them that God has said that He will.

That's pretty much what I was talking about. Unless it's having a real impact on people, such as factory pollution that raises asthma, it's not my place to tell others how to live.

I have every legal right to prevent gay marriages.

You have no legal right to do this.

I will vote for religious people, and we will establish laws that are good, and stop allowing people to do those things which are evil.

"Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion." Legislating morality is falling out of favor.

And you will do nothing about that.

Why would I do nothing? I've already even have acted and have done and am doing my part to bring the LBGT community to full equality under the law.

And I will tell everyone I know how horrible an act sodomy is

Why? Have you nothing better to do?

and I will shame anyone who disagrees with me.

If you want. It just makes you look like an *** and builds sympathy for your targets.

And I will live my life according to the truth and righteousness of God.

It seems more like you're living in accordance to how much you hate homosexuals.

 

[Acim]

The brain isn't fully developed until about the age of 21. Before then, in its state of immaturity, the "higher functionings" are the last thing to develop, and is the reason teenagers are known for being reckless because their brains are not quit developed enough to have a firm grasp of long term consequences.

Welcome to the land of adultism. Enjoy your stay.

 

[Nous]

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.”

You wouldn't know who wins the popular vote until just shortly before the electoral college meets in December.

False. Under the operation of the NPVIC, we would know who won the election as soon as the national popular vote is tallied. There would be no need to wait until December 19 in order to determine who won the election.

Your complaints about the NPVIC are a moving target. You say one thing that has no basis in reality whatsoever, then when I point out that fact, you change it to some other baseless complaint.

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.

The NPVIC does not entail any electors “switching” their votes; it does not entail that electors “agree to switch” votes. Under the operation of the NPVIC, the issue of which candidate won the popular vote in any particular state (or district, in Maine and Nebraska) is eliminated. The only issue that is important and determinative would be which candidate has won the national popular vote.

The NPVIC circumvents electoral votes; it will make the counting of electoral votes unnecessary and irrelevant. By law, the majority of the electoral votes will be cast for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate won or lost in any particular state.

It would be better to have an actual popular vote.

You haven't pointed out any actual difference in electing the President by direct national popular vote and electing the President by operation of the NPVIC. The two methods work toward electing the candidate the wins the most votes, and the two methods always achieve the same effect.

You are welcome to spend the time, effort and money in trying to pass a Constitutional amendment to eliminate election by state electors. But there is obviously no rational reason to falsely ridicule the NPVIC, which is on its way to being adopted by the requisite number of states and will go into effect decades before a Constitutional amendment will be ratified.

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

In relation to its own population. But the true value of an electoral vote is constant.

What the hell is "true value of an electoral vote"? Define "true value".

The Court has never held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees anything about "true value" of electoral votes in Presidential elections. The Court has never held anything relating to vote weight or power of elector's votes. The Court's holdings on equal voting weight concern the votes of individual voters.

 

[Nous]

The brain isn't fully developed until about the age of 21. Before then, in its state of immaturity, the "higher functionings" are the last thing to develop, and is the reason teenagers are known for being reckless because their brains are not quit developed enough to have a firm grasp of long term consequences.

Yet, at least one study I've read found that even young teenagers (generally) use the same process of reasoning, the same premises and motivations, in deciding whether or not to have sex with someone as adults use.

 

[Poisonshady313]

False. Under the operation of the NPVIC, we would know who won the election as soon as the national popular vote is tallied.

How long would that take? I do believe this year votes were still being counted into the first week of December. So my statement: "You wouldn't know who wins the popular vote until just shortly before the electoral college meets in December." is not false.

There would be no need to wait until December 19 in order to determine who won the election.

I said "just shortly before". I didn't say "we won't know until the electoral college."

The NPVIC does not entail any electors “switching” their votes; it does not entail that electors “agree to switch” votes. Under the operation of the NPVIC, the issue of which candidate won the popular vote in any particular state (or district, in Maine and Nebraska) is eliminated. The only issue that is important and determinative would be which candidate has won the national popular vote.

Except all the votes aren't counted by the end of the day on election day. As I pointed out, you might not have that number until early December. Unless the NPVIC would end the practice of networks "calling states" one way or the other and presuming the winner of electors, in which case we still wouldn't really know who won until perhaps a week or two before the electoral college.

The NPVIC circumvents electoral votes; it will make the counting of electoral votes unnecessary and irrelevant. By law, the majority of the electoral votes will be cast for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate won or lost in any particular state.

It doesn't actually put an end to the electoral college. It just decides to ignore the results. "When the Electoral College meets in mid-December, the national popular vote winner would receive all of the electoral votes of the enacting states." So yeah, the NPVIC DOES entail electors switching their votes (if there's another election where the popular vote and the electoral vote would be different. Otherwise, the NPVIC would be redundant and without purpose.)

You haven't pointed out any actual difference in electing the President by direct national popular vote and electing the President by operation of the NPVIC. The two methods work toward electing the candidate the wins the most votes, and the two methods always achieve the same effect.

The problem is with discouraging voters. The more people who vote, the more meaningful the election is. If everybody's vote mattered, but people didn't vote, then one could say it was truly because of lousy candidates. As it stands, and as it would be with NPVIC, a lack of voter turnout is more because of a lousy system.

Set aside elections where the popular vote and electoral vote don't match up. Those are few and far between.

When the popular vote and electoral vote match up, you'll still have the states that are part of this casting their electors for the winner of the popular vote, regardless of how that state voted... so we're asking each state to hold their own election for no real reason. There's no real sense of expression that voting is supposed to provide.

If I vote for someone and that candidate loses, that's just how it goes sometimes. If I vote for someone and you change my vote, why the hell did I bother voting? The NPVIC encourages an atmosphere where voters feel like their votes matter less than they do now. And they hardly matter now.

Have a true popular vote, and every vote will matter.

What the hell is "true value of an electoral vote"? Define "true value".

The population of the country divided by the number of electoral votes. Right now, that's a number just under 600,000.
If California were given electoral votes purely according to its population, it would have 65.

But we take votes away from large states and give them to small states who, according to the value of an electoral vote, wouldn't get even 1 vote... so that they can allegedly have a louder voice...

But it's all crap because the whole population of this country doesn't vote.