Author Topic: Trump: I would rather have presidential election based on the popular vote  (Read 10083 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
So, on balance, I say let's keep the College.

The large-states vs. small-states argument was one of the greatest compromises arrived at in the Constitutional Convention.  it was obvious right up front the large states would be able to roll right over the small ones, given their relative size.  It's basically why the Founders disliked greatly the idea of "Democracy."  We have a Republic, in order to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority.

@jmyrlefuller said in a post the other day, a Democracy would permit 50% plus one of the people to take everything away from the 50% minus one.  The Electoral College is one of the firewalls we have to prevent that.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
True enough, but limiting it to only a majority of votes actually cast still allows a small minority to control things, and incentivizes election fraud to dissuade people from voting, or having their votes invalidated.

Absolutely correct, which is why I disagree with the whole notion of using a straight popular vote.  There are too many ways to jigger the vote of the mob.

I have a practical objection as well.  I remember from the 2000 election, there was all this caterwauling about the Florida recounts.  If we here going to have that election decided by simple majority vote, that recount screaming would have been going on in all 51 jurisdictions.  As it was, all the fight was successfully firewalled in just Florida.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,536
  • Gender: Female
   :facepalm2:  He would have lost.  Sometimes I wonder if he still doesn't understand the electoral process.
Romans 12:16-21

Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all…do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
   :facepalm2:  He would have lost.  Sometimes I wonder if he still doesn't understand the electoral process.

In fairness to Donald Trump, I'm not sure he would have lost if he played the game the way Hillary did, ignoring the rurals.  Who knows how it would have gone if Trump had spent more time and money going after the 'burbs?  He probably would have still gotten the rurals.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
In fairness to Donald Trump, I'm not sure he would have lost if he played the game the way Hillary did, ignoring the rurals.  Who knows how it would have gone if Trump had spent more time and money going after the 'burbs?  He probably would have still gotten the rurals.

Lets let the dems rehash the election, shall we.  They seem to have more experience at such things.
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Lets let the dems rehash the election, shall we.  They seem to have more experience at such things.

They do.  And, I'd like to add, with very limited success.   :smokin:
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
They do.  And, I'd like to add, with very limited success.   :smokin:

Heheheheheheh.   888high58888
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Oceander

  • Guest
Absolutely correct, which is why I disagree with the whole notion of using a straight popular vote.  There are too many ways to jigger the vote of the mob.

I have a practical objection as well.  I remember from the 2000 election, there was all this caterwauling about the Florida recounts.  If we here going to have that election decided by simple majority vote, that recount screaming would have been going on in all 51 jurisdictions.  As it was, all the fight was successfully firewalled in just Florida.

True enough.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
People still don’t get how Trump “conversates.”

He wasn’t saying we should change to a popular vote election system, he was simply noting it would have been easier for him to win in a popular vote because of what most of us already know: that a national campaign would need only visit the major population centers to win, cutting down on time and travel, instead of having to maintain the grueling schedule necessary to win in the electoral college system.

Not surprisingly though, seems the man is misunderstood mostly by those predisposed to disliking him.

Offline Rivergirl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,036
It didn't take long after the president made his comment that there were callers to CSPAN promoting the idea of a popular vote rather than the electoral college.
sigh............

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
People still don’t get how Trump “conversates.”

He wasn’t saying we should change to a popular vote election system, he was simply noting it would have been easier for him to win in a popular vote because of what most of us already know: that a national campaign would need only visit the major population centers to win, cutting down on time and travel, instead of having to maintain the grueling schedule necessary to win in the electoral college system.

Not surprisingly though, seems the man is misunderstood mostly by those predisposed to disliking him.

Yes, less travel, to be sure, several of us have made that point that one would only have to cater to those places.
Does he really think the large population centers in the US would have elected him, and he would have gotten more of that vote?
I guess so, since he said it.
But how?

Only if he ran to the left.

I guess we should all be thankful the EC was in place......


« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 10:08:45 pm by GrouchoTex »

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
People still don’t get how Trump “conversates.”

He wasn’t saying we should change to a popular vote election system, he was simply noting it would have been easier for him to win in a popular vote because of what most of us already know: that a national campaign would need only visit the major population centers to win, cutting down on time and travel, instead of having to maintain the grueling schedule necessary to win in the electoral college system.

Not surprisingly though, seems the man is misunderstood mostly by those predisposed to disliking him.

HORSESHIT.

Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Yes, less travel, to be sure, several of us have made that point that one would only have to cater to those places.
Does he really think the large population centers in the US would have elected him, and he would have gotten more of that vote?
I guess so, since he said it.
But how?

Only if he ran to the left.

I guess we should all be thankful the EC was in place......

Given Donald Trump’s ego I assume he believes he could have tailored a winning message even in LA, New York, Chicago. And given his energy and campaign style, whose to say he couldn’t have done it? After all, most people were saying he’d never win the primary, much less the presidency.

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
They do.  And, I'd like to add, with very limited success.   :smokin:

SoreLoserman - one of the bright spots in what is now a dismal, dark TOS.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Online corbe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38,072
   Didn't Trump cancel a rally in Chicago because of the rowdies?  @aligncare
No government in the 12,000 years of modern mankind history has led its people into anything but the history books with a simple lesson, don't let this happen to you.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
I think the electoral college was a good idea, maybe still is.  But it certainly favors liberals. California is a good example.  A lot of California citizens are conservative to the point of wanting to secede but the huge population areas in liberal strongholds give the liberal candidate a huge advantage.

Something to think about, maybe.

That's not how I understand it, @Emjay.  If it weren't for the Electoral College, all of us in rural areas, and in more sparsely settled states like Iowa, Wyoming, Idaho, much of Texas, etc., our votes wouldn't even matter.  LA, NYC, Houston and a few other urban areas would determine the who wins.  And, we would still have to see the endless commercials on TV and radio. 

Edited to add: I made the mistake of answering before reading all of the other comments.  I see my point has been made, and much better than I did.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 10:40:42 pm by Sanguine »

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
The worst aspect of a straight popular vote is the massive voter fraud potential with no standard ID requirements and decades old voter rolls, even in red states.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline bilo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,335
Absolutely correct, which is why I disagree with the whole notion of using a straight popular vote.  There are too many ways to jigger the vote of the mob.

I have a practical objection as well.  I remember from the 2000 election, there was all this caterwauling about the Florida recounts.  If we here going to have that election decided by simple majority vote, that recount screaming would have been going on in all 51 jurisdictions.  As it was, all the fight was successfully firewalled in just Florida.

This!

I'm surprised other posters haven't thought about all the illegal ballots that are cast in liberal/sanctuary cities and states. CA. is now registering illegals to vote when they give them drivers licenses. The electoral college limits how much damage can be done by a few corrupt liberal states.
A stranger in a hostile foreign land I used to call home

Offline libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,536
  • Gender: Female
Romans 12:16-21

Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly, do not claim to be wiser than you are.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all…do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,759
People still don’t get how Trump “conversates.”

He wasn’t saying we should change to a popular vote election system, he was simply noting it would have been easier for him to win in a popular vote because of what most of us already know: that a national campaign would need only visit the major population centers to win, cutting down on time and travel, instead of having to maintain the grueling schedule necessary to win in the electoral college system.

Not surprisingly though, seems the man is misunderstood mostly by those predisposed to disliking him.

Even if he was saying that, the idea that Trump would win the liberal, big cities is nuts.

Online catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,369
  • Gender: Male
Popular vote election will result in campaigning being risk (time) / reward based on concentration of population centers.

Places like Wyoming, Montana, and Dakotas will be mostly ignored.

Sorry Donald, another dumb idea that the dim/libs love.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline Emjay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,687
  • Gender: Female
  • Womp, womp
That's not how I understand it, @Emjay.  If it weren't for the Electoral College, all of us in rural areas, and in more sparsely settled states like Iowa, Wyoming, Idaho, much of Texas, etc., our votes wouldn't even matter.  LA, NYC, Houston and a few other urban areas would determine the who wins.  And, we would still have to see the endless commercials on TV and radio. 

Edited to add: I made the mistake of answering before reading all of the other comments.  I see my point has been made, and much better than I did.

Don't worry about it, Sanguine, I do that all the time.  Anyway, it's been an interesting thread and I was kinda interested and amazed to see what a different picture we'd have on the Presidential scenery without the electoral college.  Yep, totally convinced now.  Keep it.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,734
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
The electoral college is vital and should not be changed.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline Chosen Daughter

  • For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 10:12-13
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,890
  • Gender: Female
  • Ephesians 6:13 Stand Firm in the face of evil
Wow, Corbe.  Thanks.  I did not realize there were so many elections that would have been different with popular vote.  Clinton didn't get popular vote either time.

Harry Truman would have lost and so would John Kennedy.

We wouldn't have had 'Gimme Jimmy" Carter.

Lincoln would have lost.

Lots more in older times but these are the most recent and relevant to us.

On balance ... I'm glad we got Harry Truman and maybe John Kennedy (even though I hated him)

We avoided algore but we got Clinton twice
 
And .... (drumroll)  We would have had Hillary.

So, on balance, I say let's keep the College.

Should never even be entertained.  Once again Trump shows himself not a defender of our great Constitution but the enemy of it.  The tearing down of what has held this country together since the signing of our Constitution.  It was created to protect us from tyranny and tyranny is exactly what Trump is proposing.


A Republic, If You Can Keep It



During the fiery hot summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, a woman patiently waited in front of the locked doors at the Pennsylvania State House. Behind the shackles, a group of representatives of the states, meeting in secrecy, convened to debate and craft the United States Constitution. Many were left mystified as to which type of government would be proposed. By that time, most of the western world only knew monarchy.

The delegates decided upon a grand experiment of the ages: the proposition that man could govern himself. They decided upon a union of states rather than a national government, settling for “a more perfect union.” Throwing monarchy to the wayside, they employed the separation of powers doctrine to ensure that one center of power could not become too dominant over the others. They embraced federalism, and recognized that all powers not enumerated would be reserved to the states and the people.

Emerging from behind the doors, Benjamin Franklin, a man many knew as “Poor Richard Saunders” approached. When asked by the woman what form the new government would take, Franklin answered shrewdly: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Today, Franklin’s words seem especially prophetic. He realized that a vigilant populace was necessary to preserve liberty and the rigid boundaries of the Constitution. According to Franklin, this great experiment depended on maintaining the axioms decided upon in those summer days. Without such activism, the Constitution would read only as a dead letter.

Those who claim that the Constitution provided for democracy as the cornerstone to our political system are historically mistaken. A democracy is an assurance of mob rule, where minority factions lose their liberty through legislation, and when power is consolidated over the subdued masses. This arrangement was intentionally dismissed during the time of ratification. James Madison specifically addressed this issue in The Federalist #10:


“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”[1]

Later in this essay, Madison illustrated the alternative: “the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.”[2] A republic, according to Madison, “promises the cure for which we are seeking.”[3]

Then serving as James Madison’s coadjutor, John Jay noted: “Pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication, and with it a thousand mad pranks and fooleries.”[4] In the Philadelphia Convention, Edmund Randolph said, “in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”[5]

Alexander Hamilton, the organizer of The Federalist essays, said the following of democracy at New York’s Ratifying Convention of 1788:


“It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”[6]

In opposition to democracy, a republic ensures that minority rights are protected. Individuals embody the smallest minority on earth, and are not exceptions to this creed. The individual was supposed to be superior to the collective. Individual rights were recognized, collectivized rights were not.

Franklin wisely understood that the value of liberty necessitated a republican form of government.

I sometimes run into people that have become disenfranchised with the constitutional system. They contend that the Constitution is ineffectual and completely unsuccessful, often basing their claims on the propensity of government to violate its restrictions. While their claims find merit, these individuals often fail to identify a key platitude that explains how the federal government has degenerated throughout the last two centuries.

The Constitution doesn’t enforce itself, and Franklin’s reply proves that he was keenly aware of this fact. Instead, it takes the dedication of individuals and localities acting as agitators to hold federal officials accountable. The founders realized that the document does not protrude fangs or grow a scorpion’s tail to bite or sting a violating offender. Instead, it requires the actions of individuals to reject this tendency. It often requires great losses in property, fortune, and reputation to do so. Constitutions are no more supernatural than the paper they are written on.

Considering this, what if Patrick Henry was right in objecting to the Constitution? What if George Mason correctly noted that the government which would rise from the plaster of its mold would be repugnant? What if Robert Yates and John Lansing astutely realized that dubious representatives were plotting to overpower the states through a national takeover?

Despite the seemingly accurate prognostication of these men, we cannot simply abandon the constitutional system because the figures currently in power don’t respect the Constitution. Their aims must be obstructed through creative and flagrant methods, sparked by individuals and states. Indeed, Madison wrote that states should “present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”[7] Pernicious tenacities can still be opposed today if an indignant and vexed populace makes sure of it.

The impeachment power notated in Article II, Section IV was no suggestion, and can be fully utilized with enough political pressure. Nullification can prevent the federal government from enforcing unconstitutional actions within a state, and acts to protect individual liberty. Strength in the people’s numbers sets us free, and even the lofty resources of the federal government can’t counteract all forces aligned against unconstitutional policy. The federal government simply can’t enforce all it desires to when confronted with enough organized resistance.

Despite the brevity of Franklin’s response to the woman in Philadelphia, his words proved his immaculate foresight and provided a lesson to us all. As Samuel Adams said, “The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attack.” The continued health of our republic depends on it.

 
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/06/11/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it/
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 02:14:44 am by Chosen Daughter »
AG William Barr: "I'm recused from that matter because one of the law firms that represented Epstein long ago was a firm that I subsequently joined for a period of time."

Alexander Acosta Labor Secretary resigned under pressure concerning his "sweetheart deal" with Jeffrey Epstein.  He was under consideration for AG after Sessions was removed, but was forced to resign instead.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Even if he was saying that, the idea that Trump would win the liberal, big cities is nuts.

 I thought that was one of the major criticisms of Trump, that he was a New York liberal?