Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote

[Arturo Bandini]

(07-29-2022, 01:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is interesting watching people display profound ignorance about the Constitution and its deliberate efforts to prevent the tyranny of the majority.  Straight majority rule was something they actively strove against, hence the Senate.  Oh wait, that's something the Dems want to radically alter as well.  Isn't that interesting?

The tyranny of the majority sounds like an interesting democratic concept.

[*Nately120*]

(07-29-2022, 05:14 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: using popular vote in president election is terrible idea. that means places like california and ny have way to much say. thats why the left wants this to happen, they cant win any other way in 2024.

The CA thing might not last too long the way people are moving out of that state into commonly known "red states."  Assertions and analysis that the CA migration was what turned the AZ tide to a swing state and flipped it from red to blue, come to mind.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2022, 05:15 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: The tyranny of the majority sounds like an interesting democratic concept.

It is, you should do some reading on the subject.  I'm sure you'd feel the same if it was a majority group oppressing a minority group because they're, well, the majority. 

[*Nately120*]

(07-29-2022, 05:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is, you should do some reading on the subject.  I'm sure you'd feel the same if it was a majority group oppressing a minority group because they're, well, the majority. 

I'm probably missing things here, but does it matter which side is being tyrannical?  If I'm a wanna be tyrant and I look at the two sides and I see one of them can win without getting majority support, that's the one I'm going for.  

But again, I'm letting the recent events color my judgment.  I won't say the majority can't be tyrannical, but if one side has the easier path to victory I expect to see the tyrants line up for that team.

[treee]

(07-29-2022, 05:14 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: using popular vote in president election is terrible idea. that means places like california and ny have way to much say. thats why the left wants this to happen, they cant win any other way in 2024.

That is what the Senate is for.

[Belsnickel]

(07-29-2022, 05:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm probably missing things here, but does it matter which side is being tyrannical?  If I'm a wanna be tyrant and I look at the two sides and I see one of them can win without getting majority support, that's the one I'm going for.  

But again, I'm letting the recent events color my judgment.  I won't say the majority can't be tyrannical, but if one side has the easier path to victory I expect to see the tyrants line up for that team.

Yup, a tyrant is a tyrant. Whether they are in the majority or the minority. Honestly, a popularly elected POTUS will have no impact on it because of the way Congress is structured and the way the powers are separated. But, because one party is unabashedly anti-democratic they use these arguments because they don't hide this.

[*Nately120*]

(07-29-2022, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup, a tyrant is a tyrant. Whether they are in the majority or the minority. Honestly, a popularly elected POTUS will have no impact on it because of the way Congress is structured and the way the powers are separated. But, because one party is unabashedly anti-democratic they use these arguments because they don't hide this.

And again, I know Trump is a blatantly odd example of a president, but the guy was elected by the states, not the majority, and yet he's back to promising again that he will "override governors" as president.  It just doesn't seem very "states first" to me.

[*pally*]

(07-29-2022, 05:14 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: using popular vote in president election is terrible idea. that means places like california and ny have way to much say. thats why the left wants this to happen, they cant win any other way in 2024.

The PEOPLE would have the say in a direct popular vote election.  Not a state, as it does now.   If your side can't win a popular vote maybe it is time to revisit what they stand for.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2022, 05:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm probably missing things here, but does it matter which side is being tyrannical?  If I'm a wanna be tyrant and I look at the two sides and I see one of them can win without getting majority support, that's the one I'm going for.  

But again, I'm letting the recent events color my judgment.  I won't say the majority can't be tyrannical, but if one side has the easier path to victory I expect to see the tyrants line up for that team.

Certainly not, but it is most certainly easier to enact a tyranny of the majority than the other way around.  Not that it's impossible, as the era of colonialism certainly shows.  It could certainly be enacted by the extremely wealthy if they got enough people to enact their will.  Good thing we have a second amendment to enable a resistance to such a move.

[*Nately120*]

(07-29-2022, 06:53 PM)pally Wrote: The PEOPLE would have the say in a direct popular vote election.  Not a state, as it does now.   If your side can't win a popular vote maybe it is time to revisit what they stand for.  

Republican's inability to win the popular vote is a relatively new thing isn't it?  The popular vote has only really skewed towards democrats fairly recently, which might indicate that republicans have become less appealing to the general populace in the Trump era.  The only republican I see in my life who couldn't win the popular vote is Trump, because Bush lost it to Gore but won it against Kerry.

Bush got it over Kerry
Bush got it over Dukakis
Reagan didn't need the EC by any measure
nor did Nixon or Eisenhower (I wasn't alive for this)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1035521/popular-votes-republican-democratic-parties-since-1828/

(07-29-2022, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Certainly not, but it is most certainly easier to enact a tyranny of the majority than the other way around.  Not that it's impossible, as the era of colonialism certainly shows.  It could certainly be enacted by the extremely wealthy if they got enough people to enact their will.  Good thing we have a second amendment to enable a resistance to such a move.

Meh, I'm pretty sure the biggest supporters of the 2A are currently attempting to facilitate tyranny.  Methinks the recent political insanity has shown how vulnerable our democracy really is despite all the safeguards that were put into place.  To paraphrase Merlin "We will break what cannot be broken."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2022, 07:16 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, I'm pretty sure the biggest supporters of the 2A are currently attempting to facilitate tyranny.  Methinks the recent political insanity has shown how vulnerable our democracy really is despite all the safeguards that were put into place.  To paraphrase Merlin "We will break what cannot be broken."

I think you're indulging in some lazy stereotypes here.  I know a very large number of people who own a very large number of firearms and not a single one would fit that description.  My group of friends (not people I know from work) would do desert shoot camping trips and people would be legitimately stunned at how diverse our group was when responding to Instagram pictures (not mine, I almost never post on Instagram).  The stereotype of the older white gun nut is not even close to relevant anymore.  Not saying those guys don't exist, but I don't think they account for anything close to a plurality of gun owners.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-29-2022, 07:16 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, I'm pretty sure the biggest supporters of the 2A are currently attempting to facilitate tyranny.  Methinks the recent political insanity has shown how vulnerable our democracy really is despite all the safeguards that were put into place.  To paraphrase Merlin "We will break what cannot be broken."

The largest growing community of gun owners are black females.

I'm a pretty liberal guy and I am an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Point of fact, most self identified socialists are 100% on board with the 2nd Amendment (fwiw - I am not a socialist). A major part of socialism is an armed populace and a disarmed government; the working class shall not be subjugated.

As SSF said, it's a lazy stereotype that gun owners want a tyrant. Most of us just wanna shoot targets and dirt. The bang switch makes us giggle.

[*Nately120*]

(07-29-2022, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're indulging in some lazy stereotypes here.

'Ey, shudduppa you mouth!

(07-29-2022, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know a very large number of people who own a very large number of firearms and not a single one would fit that description.  My group of friends (not people I know from work) would do desert shoot camping trips and people would be legitimately stunned at how diverse our group was when responding to Instagram pictures (not mine, I almost never post on Instagram).  The stereotype of the older white gun nut is not even close to relevant anymore.  Not saying those guys don't exist, but I don't think they account for anything close to a plurality of gun owners.

I agree, I'm just saying before both election and after and all over the place Trump has not so subtly said if he loses that people would use their 2A right to make things right, and he seems pretty accepted despite it or for it.  I just happen to think the right to bear arms looks like it is more likely to usher in tyranny than to fight it.  Call me a grim downer.

Now if Russia invaded, yes we'd use it to fight em off, but we also seem a bit too accepting of certain leaders suggesting we use it for their benefit rather than our own or for the country. Really, it's more about our own gullibility rather than the guns themselves.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-29-2022, 01:19 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: That's an awful lot of words for "The GOP can't win in a straight popular vote".

I wouldn't say that. The GOP/Dems don't give it a full effort in states where they know they will likely lose in. They focus on quick trips in their Favored states and spend most of their time in swing states.

Instead of campaigning like that, both sides will focus more on the higher population states/areas.

And if they start winning the popular vote, you'll go back to complaining and wanting the EC back. 

[*Nately120*]

(07-29-2022, 07:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I wouldn't say that. The GOP/Dems don't give it a full effort in states where they know they will likely lose in. They focus on quick trips in their Favored states and spend most of their time in swing states.

Instead of campaigning like that, both sides will focus more on the higher population states/areas.

And if they start winning the popular vote, you'll go back to complaining and wanting the EC back. 

Possibly, but it's also hard to say since the popular vote has become such a democrat thing.  I'd love to see a situation where republicans win the popular vote but democrats win the EC by a comfortable margin just to see if republicans would really handle it as well as they think democrats should. 

It's like when the Bengals were god awful and they'd be 0-8 and the Steelers would be like 6-2 and I'd be in a sour mood and some of my Steeler fan pals would be like "You complain too much, if the Steelers were 0-8 I'd handle it better than you would."  Yeah, big talk, pal...hopefully you get to show me how nicely you accept losing soon. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-29-2022, 08:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Possibly, but it's also hard to say since the popular vote has become such a democrat thing.  I'd love to see a situation where republicans win the popular vote but democrats win the EC by a comfortable margin just to see if republicans would really handle it as well as they think democrats should. 

It's like when the Bengals were god awful and they'd be 0-8 and the Steelers would be like 6-2 and I'd be in a sour mood and some of my Steeler fan pals would be like "You complain too much, if the Steelers were 0-8 I'd handle it better than you would."  Yeah, big talk, pal...hopefully you get to show me how nicely you accept losing soon. 

Hasn't that already happened before? And with same results, Reps wanted it changed to popular vote and so on. 
It will likely never get changed, too many votes needed to pass it, and right now, they can't even agree on simple things like which leg should go into the pants first.

[Leon]

(07-29-2022, 07:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I wouldn't say that. The GOP/Dems don't give it a full effort in states where they know they will likely lose in. They focus on quick trips in their Favored states and spend most of their time in swing states.

Instead of campaigning like that, both sides will focus more on the higher population states/areas.

And if they start winning the popular vote, you'll go back to complaining and wanting the EC back. 

yessir. exactly right

[Bengalfan4life27c]

No different than republicans trying to alter the presidential election by having the state legislatures elect who they want for president regardless of popular vote. It's likely if supreme court rules in favor of state legislatures having this power it could possibly start a 2nd civil war with states like NY and CA seceding from the union . Reading the tea leaves according to reports Alito and Gorsuch dont want to go this far thankfully. They do want to give state legislatures the power to gerrymander however they feel like it. Once they do this it will backfire because the gerrymander will be extreme in NY and CA for example. They drew a map in NY recently where had it been enacted R would have been favored in only 1 seat in the house.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-29-2022, 05:14 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: using popular vote in president election is terrible idea. that means places like california and ny have way to much say. thats why the left wants this to happen, they cant win any other way in 2024.

It would actually make it so that no “places” would have a say. Land doesn’t have a say…the people do. The electoral college has given a handicap to the right for a while now, giving the people in places like Wyoming, Montana, and West Virginia much more voting power than the people in places like California, New York, or Massachusetts. Current votes mean more or less based on where you live, but I guess I understand the complaint that the right has with making every vote 1/1….they just can’t win on a level playing field.

[Belsnickel]

(07-30-2022, 04:52 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: No different than republicans trying to alter the presidential election by having the state legislatures elect who they want for president regardless of popular vote. It's likely if supreme court rules in favor of state legislatures having this power it could possibly start a 2nd civil war with states like NY and CA seceding from the union . Reading the tea leaves according to reports Alito and Gorsuch dont want to go this far thankfully. They do want to give state legislatures the power to gerrymander however they feel like it. Once they do this it will backfire because the gerrymander will be extreme in NY and CA for example. They drew a map in NY recently where had it been enacted R would have been favored in only 1 seat in the house.

Actually, the SCOTUS doesn't need to rule on anything for a state to be able to do that. That's completely constitutional. The Constitution gives the states the authority to determine how they select their electors. The state could have them all appointed by the governor, or the state legislature, or any other means. Hell, they could do it by a dartboard method. Doesn't matter. A state's legislature is invested with the authority by the Constitution to determine how electors are chosen.