• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer


Googling will yield dozens of hits about the issue. Is it far fetched? Maybe. Horrendously expensive? Definitely. Beyond the realm of possibility? Nope.
Ummm... yes it beyond possible. And again, that isn't a "proposal" that was a hypothetical and a suggestion.

We haven't even touched the dreaded v-word... volume. That article is whacked up. The "tens of billions"? One line would cost hundreds of billions. Just one line... and you'd need more than one line. A lot more.
I am more than aware of the impracticalities, the environmental issues invoked, the geopolitical issues and the cost.

I’ve never said that it was likely to happen soon—but it’s been discussed for some years now. Humans have not changed much in the centuries since Their Majesties Ferdinand and Isabella funded Columbus’ trip across the pond. We all know how that played out…for centuries.

People are people. They tend to find ways to justify what they do. And convince others to believe it was for the greater good and glory. Of whomever…
 
My point was to disagree on the "proposal" part a this hasn't really been discussed at any level worth considering notable, nor serious proposals proposed, because to those in the biz, they know it is beyond infeasible.

The volume, the head, the pump design, the astronomical cost in the trillions, there is no angle on this at the basic level that makes it viable science fiction. The second you add the fact that how many people get their water currently from the Great Lakes, and we can just let the brain fart waft out the window. No one to be taken serious, has ever suggested this.
 
A few more examples before I have to get busy doing real work:

Dakota Pipeline Access

Copper-nickel mining proposed in/near Boundary Waters in Minnesota

Local for my town and hundreds of similar for other towns: In my town, Walmart wanted to move in, with the proposed site being near a/on protected wetlands area. Promises were made to ‘trade’ for other wetlands. Protests on the part of environmentalists and local businesses who feared the well documented decimation of local businesses ultimately failed.

We have a Walmart and a lot of empty businesses. No offset of wetlands. Walmart uses far more police resources than any and all other businesses, including all of the many bars in town. Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.
 
For the record, I’ve never said I was against eliminating the electoral college, but merely that I had concerns.
Good. And now you've voiced them. I should give up my hope for an equal vote because some people heard a conspiracy theory about a non-existent aqueduct. Because you're "concerned".
Please: that was just one example. The completely dismissive attitude towards rural areas permeates this forum and politics in general, not to mention all forms of media.
I have a "dismissive attitude" to conspiracy theories being used to deprive Americans of their rights. Bring me something substantive and real, a concrete example and we'll talk. This was not "just one example" of anything, because you failed to establish that it was real. So you're still trying to reach one.
 
Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.
We have a WalMart, and it did destroy a lot of local businesses. But they pay a starting wage of $18.50, and $22/hr starting pay for night shift.
I don't keep up with minimum wage changes, but I don't think that's it.
 
We have a Walmart and a lot of empty businesses. No offset of wetlands. Walmart uses far more police resources than any and all other businesses, including all of the many bars in town. Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.

We can both agree on this part. Wal-Mart is a tool of Satan.

We could go further towards Make America Great Again by burning all the Wal-Mart stores than Walling out Mexican people.
Tom
 
Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.
We have a WalMart, and it did destroy a lot of local businesses. But they pay a starting wage of $18.50, and $22/hr starting pay for night shift.
I don't keep up with minimum wage changes, but I don't think that's it.

I don't know where you live, but it sure ain't southern Indiana.
Here a feature of Christmas at Wal-Mart is little signs encouraging shoppers to buy stuff and donate it to Wal-Mart employees.
Tom
 
A few more examples before I have to get busy doing real work:

Dakota Pipeline Access

Copper-nickel mining proposed in/near Boundary Waters in Minnesota

Local for my town and hundreds of similar for other towns: In my town, Walmart wanted to move in, with the proposed site being near a/on protected wetlands area. Promises were made to ‘trade’ for other wetlands. Protests on the part of environmentalists and local businesses who feared the well documented decimation of local businesses ultimately failed.

We have a Walmart and a lot of empty businesses. No offset of wetlands. Walmart uses far more police resources than any and all other businesses, including all of the many bars in town. Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.
Those things all happened under our current system of unfair governance, with the full support of the state legislations put in place by the very system you are defending. Free and fair elections probably wouldn't have changed either situation, unless you can demonstrate how they would have. Substantiate your argument, or try again.
 
A few more examples before I have to get busy doing real work:

Dakota Pipeline Access

Copper-nickel mining proposed in/near Boundary Waters in Minnesota

Local for my town and hundreds of similar for other towns: In my town, Walmart wanted to move in, with the proposed site being near a/on protected wetlands area. Promises were made to ‘trade’ for other wetlands. Protests on the part of environmentalists and local businesses who feared the well documented decimation of local businesses ultimately failed.

We have a Walmart and a lot of empty businesses. No offset of wetlands. Walmart uses far more police resources than any and all other businesses, including all of the many bars in town. Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.
Those things all happened under our current system of unfair governance, with the full support of the state legislations put in place by the very system you are defending. Free and fair elections probably wouldn't have changed either situation, unless you can demonstrate how they would have. Substantiate your argument, or try again.

Yes. Because the concerns of large groups frequently run right over the concerns of smaller concerns.

In each of those cases, there were/are local people staunchly defending/advocating for the jobs and money the big concerns will bring.

Eliminating the electoral vote will skew things even further in favor of the majority/large concerns.

Copper-buckle mining is so far not happening in Minnesota. It will, though, eventually and will destroy millions of acres of fragile ecosystems, pollute surface and groundwater and cause irreparable harm —and the profits will go to one of several foreign firms seeking to extract copper and nickel.
 
Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.
We have a WalMart, and it did destroy a lot of local businesses. But they pay a starting wage of $18.50, and $22/hr starting pay for night shift.
I don't keep up with minimum wage changes, but I don't think that's it.

I don't know where you live, but it sure ain't southern Indiana.
Here a feature of Christmas at Wal-Mart is little signs encouraging shoppers to buy stuff and donate it to Wal-Mart employees.
Tom
I'm in South Central Colorado, very rural. Or it was when I moved here 26+ years ago. Now it has become the southern end of the Aspen Breckenridge glitz corridor. It's an incongruous mix of vagrant river rats and ski bums, artists, ranchers and million$ second homes. We even have a resurgent boutiquey downtown full of tourist shops and bad restaurants.
Eliminating the electoral vote will skew things even further in favor of the majority/large concerns.

I don't see that that is the case at all. In fact I see the electoral college perpetuating the asymmetry that afflicts our body politic.
Maybe you can explain how retaining the EC will help us change? Because as Politesse points out

"Those things all happened under our current system of unfair governance, with the full support of the state legislations put in place by the very system you are defending."

I'm recalling the definition of insanity that refers to doing the same thing, same thing, same thing...

You refer to "majority/large concerns" as if they are the same thing. What I see are large concerns benefiting a small minority that has the money to convince a majority that their large concern will benefit them.
 
I cannot help but be concerned that lower population states (including MInnesota) will give up what little power and influence they have if we go to popular vote for POTUS elections. Why does this matter? Well, the concerns of large population states such as CA, TX, and NY are often quite different than those of less populous states. One issue that leaps to mind is with regards to water rights. CA would like to get its hands on water from the Great Lakes, rather than curb its own water use, an enormous amount of which is for agricultural crops.
Indeed, though I'd say a better example would be Amtrak. If there wasn't a Senate, I don't think we have the cross-country routes for Amtrak. Certainly, small states lack leverage... I mean the US Senate exists for this very purpose! To deny that is really silly.
 
In each of those cases, there were/are local people staunchly defending/advocating for the jobs and money the big concerns will bring.
How very sad.

But how did depreciating my the value of my vote in national elections help in any way? If helping local environmentalists in Republican states defy their state legislators and their wealthy cronies is the purpose of Electoral College - which you have not demonstrated at all - it clearly did not work, anyway.
 
Color me suspicious. The elections in 2000 and 2016 were won by Republicans via the EC vote, and this change is being pushed by Democrats. Would the Democrats be pushing the NPV, or even just be in favor of it, if it was the Democrats who won in 2000 and 2016 via the EC? I'm guessing the answer is no, which makes me think the purpose of it has less to do with any principal of election fairness and more about wanting "my side to win". Its like the Democrats lost twice at the game of chess, and instead of improving their strategy for future games, they want to change the rules of chess instead.
What is the difference which party is more in favor of an NPV? If it were the Republicans pushing to prevent the Democrats from having an unfair advantage, then THEY would be the ones in the right and the Dems would be the ones in the wrong.

The founders knew they could not predict everything in the future and, like others pointed out, designed that into the amendment process. One of the many things they could not predict is the near-instantaneous and trivially easy movement of information across the country... that ends the foundational principle of having Electors, in my opinion. It does not matter which party that, at the moment, has the majority of Americans on "their side" of the political spectrum... whomever is on the low side of popularity benefits from inequality and whomever has the popularity is the victim of it.
 
Certainly, small states lack leverage...
I think the EC was instituted for the benefit of large land owners, not small States.
Even more pointedly, the EC was instituted when the privilege of wealthy WASP males was taken for granted.

Despite the lofty rhetoric, I'm confident that the Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined a non-white POTUS.
Tom
 
Certainly, small states lack leverage...
I think the EC was instituted for the benefit of large land owners, not small States.
It was really enacted because the founding fathers wanted to ensure the 'right' people's votes counted.

That said, it is a check against the numbers in more populous states.
 
Certainly, small states lack leverage...
I think the EC was instituted for the benefit of large land owners, not small States.
It was really enacted because the founding fathers wanted to ensure the 'right' people's votes counted.

That said, it is a check against the numbers in more populous states.

You say that as though large demographics are unaware of and unconcerned about people different from them. Large demographics like "urbanites", or live in populous states.

I see it as just the opposite. Big states are more representative of the American people as a whole. Urbanites are more inclined to recognize people unlike themselves, because they live around them and interact daily.

Rural folks don't need the right to overrule the rest of us with extra voting power.
Tom
 
Color me suspicious. The elections in 2000 and 2016 were won by Republicans via the EC vote, and this change is being pushed by Democrats. Would the Democrats be pushing the NPV, or even just be in favor of it, if it was the Democrats who won in 2000 and 2016 via the EC? I'm guessing the answer is no, which makes me think the purpose of it has less to do with any principal of election fairness and more about wanting "my side to win". Its like the Democrats lost twice at the game of chess, and instead of improving their strategy for future games, they want to change the rules of chess instead.
To a certain extent, I agree. That the national Democratic Party itself has a strategic interest in changing the system at present is transparently true, given the customary flip-flopping that has always happened around this issue, and the fact that they currently represent the majority of American voters (not American ciztizens, an honor neither party has ever come close to). The national Democratic Party is a godforasken cabal of liars, criminals, and hucksters, just like the Republican Party. This has been true for as long as either Party has existed, as they were always, essentially, fine tuned tools of a small kleptocratic overclass to maintain control over legislation and diminish the small but ever-present threat of minority concerns somehow reaching the floor of the Legislature for a vote. Which is why so many of our more ideologically driven founding politicians opposed the formation of political parties to begin with.

But the American public is not "the Democrats". Nor are we "the Republicans". Most of us are undeclared with regard to Party affiliation, and purposefully so. We the poeple have always desired the vote, and we have been steadily dismantling system after system designed to deny it to us ever since this country was founded. Which is why we even know what the popular vote in the last few elections even was - Americans, not "the Republican Party" or "the Democratic Party" have over time demonstrated a keen desire to somehow reach a situation of one person, one vote. That's why both parties now - voluntarily - poll their voters via the dog and pony show of a primary race before announcing their official candidates for the presidency. It's why many offices have become elected positions that used to be appointments. It's why women, servicemen overseas, former felons, African-Americans, and Native Americans are now "allowed" to vote in national elections. Those things weren't given to us for free, we had to fight long and hard to attain them, and both through and often outside the auspices of both national parties. And we're still fighting. The Electoral College is one the last of the many decrepit institutions that needs to fall before true electoral parity can be reached, and if you think the American public loves this institution too much to give it up, then I dare you to put it to a vote. Because most Americans are unhappy with the present system, and painting it as a purely partisan issue is not accurate.
 
Back
Top Bottom