2020 presidential candidate 'crats

[8manpick]

Small states have more votes than their population would proportionately have.

[Institutional Control]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/431425-colorado-governor-will-sign-bill-aimed-at-bypassing-electoral-college

[star seed 7]

It's just as stupid as the electoral college smdh

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's just as stupid as the electoral college smdh

It's even dumber, really.

[sys]

very good poll (natl) for sanders.

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1100391403165806592

[Dugout DickStone]

very good poll (natl) for sanders.

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1100391403165806592

many trumpers, like dax, are coming over to the socialist plank of Bernie's platform

[sonofdaxjones]

very good poll (natl) for sanders.

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1100391403165806592

many trumpers, like dax, are coming over to the socialist plank of Bernie's platform

Strong words from a "just this past week" strong lined anti-farm subsidy guy.   Odd (but not surprising) timing.

[DQ12]

It's just as stupid as the electoral college smdh

It's even dumber, really.

Explain to me why it's dumb. It seems that it's effectively a popular vote.

[star seed 7]

I probably should read the link, but I'm assuming it is the plan I heard was in their house a few weeks ago that pledges Colorado's electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.

I don't like the idea that theoretically the states votes could go to a candidate that not a single person in the state voted for.

[catastrophe]

Yeah seems like a good move to me. Maybe the only realistic way to make the popular vote matter with how hard it is for congress to do literally anything significant.

[catastrophe]

I probably should read the link, but I'm assuming it is the plan I heard was in their house a few weeks ago that pledges Colorado's electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.

I don't like the idea that theoretically the states votes could go to a candidate that not a single person in the state voted for.

It isn’t effective until enough states join to give the equivalent of the 270 needed to win.

If your concern is that could happen without any of Colorado’s citizens actually voting for the winning candidate, then you simply don’t support a popular vote.

[star seed 7]

And that is why you should read a link.

I guess that's better than nothing, but I'd rather get rid of the ec totally.

[sys]

one problem (not necessarily fatal) is that you would have a de facto national vote without any mechanism for national oversight (disfranchisement, fraud, recounts, etc.).

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's just as stupid as the electoral college smdh

It's even dumber, really.

Explain to me why it's dumb. It seems that it's effectively a popular vote.

It's still the electoral college, only the state is disenfranchising its own voters to an even greater extent than the electoral college does, in favor of whatever people in other states vote for.

[sonofdaxjones]

Breadline Bernie is raking in a pretty high amount of contributions.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Breadline Bernie is raking in a pretty high amount of contributions.

Yeah, he doesn't have to make bread. Plenty of people wiling to give it to him.

[sys]

It's still the electoral college, only the state is disenfranchising its own voters to an even greater extent than the electoral college does, in favor of whatever people in other states vote for.

it only take effect if/when states summing 270 or more electoral votes agree to it.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's still the electoral college, only the state is disenfranchising its own voters to an even greater extent than the electoral college does, in favor of whatever people in other states vote for.

it only take effect if/when states summing 270 or more electoral votes agree to it.

Oh, that isn't bad, then. I was thinking it was going to be effective immediately.

[catastrophe]

one problem (not necessarily fatal) is that you would have a de facto national vote without any mechanism for national oversight (disfranchisement, fraud, recounts, etc.).

I don’t really see that as an issue since states will still have an interest in curbing voter fraud.

The bigger issue to me is enforcement. Say you have a state like California. The Republican candidate wins the popular vote by a super slim margin, but electoral college would have gone to the Democrat. Nothing is stopping the CA electors from saying, ok just this one time we think we should vote for the person who overwhelmingly won our state.

[catastrophe]

Or they could even split for that matter.

[sys]

i mean, there's nothing to stop electoral voters from voting for whoever the eff they want to now.  nothing changes in that regard.

[sys]

correction.  federal law allows electors to vote for whoever the eff they want; however states may pass laws to bind electors.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

[catastrophe]

The motivation changes. Right now it doesn’t make much sense for an elector to vote differently than their state does. Under this system they’re being asked to vote against their state in some circumstances. But yes, at this point there’s not much reason to think they’d defy their mandate from the state.

[sys]

harris is an ice agent.

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1100844398080860162

[steve dave]

The Bernie/Beto ticket should be called the NOT A Cop ticket


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk