Trump: Against the Electoral College; For National Popular Vote

[Nous]

Yes I did. I pointed it, like the House of Reps, had more or less bribes to get the slaves states on board with forming a nation. I said it happened in 1787 before the article claims. I pointed out the 3/5 compromise was not a proposal by the slave states. The slave states wanted slaves to be property for taxes. They wanted slaves to be full people for population based systems. The history you are bring up is flawed.

Thanks for the link.



Do you not read what you post? You put forward a reason which you seem to ignore. Besides your point it on paper it was meant to prevent a democracy created from a union of sovereign states.



Yet there is state legislation that do not follow this. A few electors in 2016 election voted according to their conscience so-called faithless electors.



States are not the Fed




Heard of tyranny of the majority before? Heard of preemptive action? Have you looked at what a majority elect has done in some states namely Jim Crow?



A popular vote would just swing things to the most populous states with an urban focus.



Maximum equality in voting does not mean much if the voter bases are idiots or have been conned. A point you agreed with. The only difference is that you seems to believe that the voter base are more "educated" thus better qualified to make an informed vote compared to the past. I disagree with that view considering the 2016 election.

So apparently you do not dispute anything I noted about the facts provided in professor Amar's article in Time, such as the fact that by 1800 the electoral system of electing the President functioned as nothing more than a means for giving slave states more electors per free person as a result of counting slaves as three-fifths persons.

Apparently you do not dispute any of the facts I've cited from National Popular Vote showing that the state-winner-take-all system of awarding electoral voted leads candidates and campaigns to ignore all but a few large battleground states.

Apparently you do not dispute any fact noted in the Miller paper showing that the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes provides greater a priori voting power to individuals in large states, and that election by direct popular vote "uniquely maximizes and equalizes individual voting power”.

And apparently you do not dispute any of my statements such as the fact that once every 45.6 years on average (to date), the presidential candidate who did not win the national popular vote wins the Electoral College vote has not accomplished and does not accomplish anything laudatory, and that you have not cited any evidence or made any argument by which to conclude that such a system of electing the President has benefited the country in any way or has prevented the “destruction of the nation”. Correct?

If you do dispute anything I've posted, quote it and cite the evidence that it is erroneous.

 

[Shad]

So apparently you do not dispute anything I noted about the facts provided in professor Amar's article in Time, such as the fact that by 1800 the electoral system of electing the President functioned as nothing more than a means for giving slave states more electors per free person as a result of counting slaves as three-fifths persons.

Again I pointed out this happened in 1787. I disagree with the claims of it's function is solely for the purpose stated in the article. The 3/5 compromise was not what the slave states wanted. They wanted slaves to count in the population based RoH and the EC but not when it came to taxes. All of this was done to get those former colonies, slave states, into the new nation.

Apparently you do not dispute any of the facts I've cited from National Popular Vote showing that the state-winner-take-all system of awarding electoral voted leads candidates and campaigns to ignore all but a few large battleground states.

I was never keen on the winner takes all system.

Apparently you do not dispute any fact noted in the Miller paper showing that the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes provides greater a priori voting power to individuals in large states, and that election by direct popular vote "uniquely maximizes and equalizes individual voting power”.

The largest states? No as Cali has 55 while the larger Texas has only 38 or Alaska for that matter. Beside that equal voting power is not a goal of mine.

And apparently you do not dispute any of my statements such as the fact that once every 45.6 years on average (to date), the presidential candidate who did not win the national popular vote wins the Electoral College vote has not accomplished and does not accomplish anything laudatory, and that you have not cited any evidence or made any argument by which to conclude that such a system of electing the President has benefited the country in any way or has prevented the “destruction of the nation”. Correct?

Why does anyone need to accomplish anything "laudatory" if they happen to win via EC? You are placing benefits solely on the official elected as if that mattered.

If you do dispute anything I've posted, quote it and cite the evidence that it is erroneous.

My slant is that I do not believe in the goal you are aiming for.

 

[Nous]

Again I pointed out this happened in 1787. I disagree with the claims of it's function is solely for the purpose stated in the article.

Apparently you didn't understand what the professor Amar wrote. Quote a sentence or sentences from the article that you disagree with.

I was never keen on the winner takes all system.



The largest states? No as Cali has 55 while the larger Texas has only 38 or Alaska for that matter. Beside that equal voting power is not a goal of mine.



Why does anyone need to accomplish anything "laudatory" if they happen to win via EC? You are placing benefits solely on the official elected as if that mattered.



My slant is that I do not believe in the goal you are aiming for.

So you don't dispute anything I've actually stated, such as the fact that once every 45.6 years on average (to date), the presidential candidate who did not win the national popular vote wins the Electoral College vote has not accomplished and does not accomplish anything laudatory; and you don't dispute that you have failed to cite any evidence or made any argument by which to conclude that such a system of electing the President has benefited the country in any way or has prevented the “destruction of the nation”. Correct?

 

[Shad]

Apparently you didn't understand what the professor Amar wrote. Quote a sentence or sentences from the article that you disagree with.

Why do I need to quote anything when you are the one supply the claim about the EC? It seems silly that you can paraphrase yet when I disagree with the paraphrasing you demand I quote something.....

So you don't dispute anything I've actually stated, such as the fact that once every 45.6 years on average (to date), the presidential candidate who did not win the national popular vote wins the Electoral College vote has not accomplished and does not accomplish anything laudatory; and you don't dispute that you have failed to cite any evidence or made any argument by which to conclude that such a system of electing the President has benefited the country in any way or has prevented the “destruction of the nation”. Correct?

I disputed the EC date provided. I disputed the idea that someone elected via an EC only victory must accomplish something great when others that win the EC and PV have no such obligation.

 

[Akivah]

These were your claims for which I asked you to cite the facts by which you have concluded them.

At least 30 states will be mostly ignored in a straight popular vote. The 20 states with less than 1% will be courted far less than if they had 3 electoral votes.
​

Provide your calculations, and state your deductions. Be sure to show that your premises are true propositions.

Don't forgot my request to:

Show that the votes cast by the 16% of the US population who live in the smallest states "will not matter to a victory" for the winner of the national popular vote. That is, cite the fact(s) by which you have deduced that conclusion.​

I've already done it. If you are claiming that a state with 0.2% population will get equal attention to a state with 10% of the population, please provide your reasons for that.

 

[Nous]

I've already done it.

False. You haven't provided any calculations or stated any deductions by which to conclude that "at least 30 states will be mostly ignored in a straight popular vote. The 20 states with less than 1% will be courted far less than if they had 3 electoral votes." Nor have you cited any facts by which to deduce the votes cast by the 16% of the US population who live in the smallest states "will not matter to a victory" for the winner of the national popular vote.

 

[Nous]

Just within the past couple of days, Connecticut has become the 12th state to adopt the NPVIC. This makes the number of electoral votes of states having enacted the measure at 172. Only 98 more electoral votes are needed to render the compact effective. There are currently bills in states having that many electoral votes. It seems Trump's win in the Electoral College without having won the national popular vote may have inspired these bills.

 

[Shad]

It seems Trump's win in the Electoral College without having won the national popular vote may have inspired these bills.

So it becomes a problem now? SMH.

 

[Nous]

So it becomes a problem now? SMH.

I don't know why you would say that. After all, no one has done better than you in showing that there is no evidence that the electoral method method of electing the President has benefited the country in any way.