Senate Democrats introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John24 said:
As California doesn’t do that your concerns are baseless.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t really know what is done in California, but the temptation to allow less than well regulated voters to participate in elections seems pretty powerful. And fairly simple to implement.

If you would like to register online, you can submit an application by using the California Online Voter Registration website.

You’ll be asked to answer a series of questions and enter your personal information, including:
  • Your CA driver’s license or ID number.
  • Your Social Security number.
  • Your birth date.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Why don’t you ask the rural voters in Ohio and see if they would rather have their interests represented by farmers in Montana. I’m not sure either one of us can speak for those Ohioans.
Click to expand...
You might consider asking North Dakotans how comfortable they would be finding out they are less significant than the city of San Francisco, or that all of Montana would matter no more than the city of San Jose.
 
This call to abolish the electoral college is the most odious overt attempt at voter suppression since the Democrats ran the south.

It is an attempt to undermine the republic and once and for all destroy what is left of federalism in favor of statism.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3’s vote of both Houses of Congress, that’s 67 Senators and 290 Representatives. They also require ratification by 3/4’s of the states.
Click to expand...
Actually 2/3 of states could call for a Constitutional convention to draft an amendment before 3/4 of states ratify same with as much time as needed. Congress is not required in the process though they have traditionally.
 
Theo520 said:
They will still have zero chance of impacting the presidential election, as will rural voters in rural states.
Click to expand...
FWIW, roughly 20% of US addresses are rural. That covers a lot of land. They do have a voice, if not in the EV certainly in the Senate.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Why don’t you ask the rural voters in Ohio and see if they would rather have their interests represented by farmers in Montana. I’m not sure either one of us can speak for those Ohioans.
Click to expand...
Your deflecting from your flawed argument.
Rural voters in CA are delighted that there are Senators that care about the things that are important to them, even if they represent other states.
 
It would still be a republic if each state splits its EV like Maine and Nebraska. They did not assume winner-take-all when they wrote the Constitution.
 
ProVobis said:
It would still be a republic if each state splits its EV like Maine and Nebraska. They did not assume winner-take-all when they wrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...
lol, better men than you or I have spent their life trying to understand what they were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. And they often disagree.

What matters is what is written, so let’s go with that.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
Well I don’t really know what is done in California, but the temptation to allow less than well regulated voters to participate in elections seems pretty powerful.
Click to expand...
It’s really not, when balanced against the penalties. Those North Carolina Republican small timers are going to spend the rest of their lives in prison for hundreds of cases of voter fraud. That people think there is organized voter fraud on the scale of hundreds of thousands or millions of fraudulent votes is beyond laughable.
Ender said:
You might consider asking North Dakotans how comfortable they would be finding out they are less significant than the city of San Francisco, or that all of Montana would matter no more than the city of San Jose.
Click to expand...
So what you’re basically saying is that rural states are so used to special treatment that they would consider being treated equally as some kind of persecution? Talk about snowflakes. I don’t throw a fit that the family of five across the street gets more votes than my family of three.
 
Last edited:
Another way to look at the unfairness of the electoral college is to see how it gives liberal city folks in Burlington, Vermont, more control per person than farmers anywhere in the US, except perhaps for Montana. That’s because Vermont has 3 electoral votes for its 626,299 people while Montana also has 3 electoral votes for its 1,062,305 people. So each person in Vermont is represented by 4.79 mev (millionth of an electoral vote). But each person in Montana is represented by 2.82 mev. So the liberals in Burlington (and there are lots of them) get almost twice as much of a say in the Presidential election as the conservatives in Missoula. I would think the conservatives would be upset that the liberals in Burlington are getting such great representation, considering their small population.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Another way to look at the unfairness of the electoral college is to see how it gives liberal city folks in Burlington, Vermont, more control per person than farmers anywhere in the US, except perhaps for Montana. That’s because Vermont has 3 electoral votes for its 626,299 people while Montana also has 3 electoral votes for its 1,062,305 people.
Click to expand...
In each of those states, the voters have equal say. The vote for their sovereign state’s electors.
The states created the general government. There is no reason to further reduce their say regarding it.
A national plebiscite is the most effective form of voter suppression.
 
John24 said:
40.png
JonNC:
A national plebiscite is the most effective form of voter suppression.
Click to expand...
Could you define “voter suppression” for me? You don’t seem to be using the term correctly.
Click to expand...
Sure. The federal nature of the relationship of the several states is preserved in large part by the electoral college, protecting the power of voters in each state. Undermining this most important relationship between the states and their creation, the general government, will even further centralize power in Washington.
Voters, particularly in smaller states, would be disenfranchised by losing their state’s influence, which was devastated by the horrendous 17th Amendment.
It wouldn’t be do bad if the general government wasn’t usurping powers not granted in Article 1Section 8
 
JonNC said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Another way to look at the unfairness of the electoral college is to see how it gives liberal city folks in Burlington, Vermont, more control per person than farmers anywhere in the US, except perhaps for Montana. That’s because Vermont has 3 electoral votes for its 626,299 people while Montana also has 3 electoral votes for its 1,062,305 people.
Click to expand...
In each of those states, the voters have equal say. The vote for their sovereign state’s electors.
The states created the general government. There is no reason to further reduce their say regarding it.
A national plebiscite is the most effective form of voter suppression.
Click to expand...
You didn’t actually address the facts that I presented, which has nothing to do with state government or any else besides the thing we are talking about here, which is the election of the President. Can you think of any good reason why the liberals in Burlington should be given so much say in that election?
 
Theo520 said:
lol, better men than you or I have spent their life trying to understand what they were thinking when they wrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But it’s not all that clear either given two states are able to split their EV.

But if the Democrats only worked to appeal to the farmers it would all be a moot point IMO.
 
JonNC said:
Sure I am. I’m just not willing to let progressives interpret the language.
Click to expand...
You should probably leave the language interpretation to progressives if you think an amendment that gave voters more power was “suppression” lol
 
The president is and should be elected by the states. The liberals, progressives, and conservatives who live their choose via an election their state’s electors. In the last election, Clinton won the popular vote in Vermont and 19 other states and DC. Trump won the popular vote in 30 states. Every voter had the same say in their state. Therefore, Vermont has no particular advantage over Montana.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top