Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So they recently had a vote to become a state pass with something like 97% of votes in favor. However only like 23% of voters actually turned out to vote. Those numbers might be off by a point or two but that isn't the point.

In any vote, not just this one, what do you guys think about something like that? Should there be some threshold for voter turnout before letting a result happen?

In an extreme example if everyone stayed home except one dude and he voted should the result count?

Just curious what people think about that.

They can want to become a State all they want, doesn't mean they will.

As long as the Russian's were involved in a fix, I'm okay with it.

I'm sure Mississippi and Louisiana would be happy with it

Neither of them would be number 50 in 20 different categories

CID1990 wrote:I'm sure Mississippi and Louisiana would be happy with it

Neither of them would be number 50 in 20 different categories

They'd still be #50 in twenty different categories, just not #51.

Thanks for the responses to the question I asked.

Great, now there could be even MORE Nissan Maximas on the road

I voted to become a millionaire.

CID1990 wrote:I'm sure Mississippi and Louisiana would be happy with it

Neither of them would be number 50 in 20 different categories

South Carolina is now 50th in education, but IIRC, colleges and universities brought it down.

If I remember right they are also going bankrupt.....That might be behind the vote totals....

VictorG wrote:If I remember right they are also going bankrupt.....That might be behind the vote totals....

Or the fact that only a quarter of eligible voters actually voted.

Vidav wrote:

VictorG wrote:If I remember right they are also going bankrupt.....That might be behind the vote totals....

Or the fact that only a quarter of eligible voters actually voted.

in a non-binding referendum.


Means nothing until they have overwhelming support AND they convince Congress to admit them.

Ibanez wrote:

Vidav wrote:
Or the fact that only a quarter of eligible voters actually voted.

in a non-binding referendum.


Means nothing until they have overwhelming support AND they convince Congress to admit them.

I know.

I really created this to see what people think about the question I asked in the original post. Not so much about what people think about PR becoming #51.

Vidav wrote:So they recently had a vote to become a state pass with something like 97% of votes in favor. However only like 23% of voters actually turned out to vote. Those numbers might be off by a point or two but that isn't the point.

In any vote, not just this one, what do you guys think about something like that? Should there be some threshold for voter turnout before letting a result happen?

In an extreme example if everyone stayed home except one dude and he voted should the result count?

Just curious what people think about that.

We don't have a minimum to elect a POTUS.

∞∞∞ wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I'm sure Mississippi and Louisiana would be happy with it

Neither of them would be number 50 in 20 different categories

They'd still be #50 in twenty different categories, just not #51.

LAWL youre right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

89Hen wrote:

Vidav wrote:So they recently had a vote to become a state pass with something like 97% of votes in favor. However only like 23% of voters actually turned out to vote. Those numbers might be off by a point or two but that isn't the point.

In any vote, not just this one, what do you guys think about something like that? Should there be some threshold for voter turnout before letting a result happen?

In an extreme example if everyone stayed home except one dude and he voted should the result count?

Just curious what people think about that.

We don't have a minimum to elect a POTUS.

Right, but do you think we should? If only 10% of voters voted do you think that should stand?

Vidav wrote:

89Hen wrote: We don't have a minimum to elect a POTUS.

Right, but do you think we should? If only 10% of voters voted do you think that should stand?

A quorum is an interesting proposition. I can't even imagine coming to a number on which most people would agree. 50%? 30%?

Vidav wrote:

89Hen wrote: We don't have a minimum to elect a POTUS.

Right, but do you think we should? If only 10% of voters voted do you think that should stand?

I don't see any other choice besides mandatory voting.

Eh, Congress needs to decide if they want to add another state and pass some legislation detailing how that would be done. With a Republican controlled Congress right now I don't see them moving quickly to bring in a 51st state that today would lean strongly in favor of the Democrats. Like a national single payer health system, this will probably happen once the Democrats win control of Congress and the White House at the same time again, so I would say somewhere in the mid 2020's.

GannonFan wrote:Eh, Congress needs to decide if they want to add another state and pass some legislation detailing how that would be done. With a Republican controlled Congress right now I don't see them moving quickly to bring in a 51st state that today would lean strongly in favor of the Democrats. Like a national single payer health system, this will probably happen once the Democrats win control of Congress and the White House at the same time again, so I would say somewhere in the mid 2020's.

And one that will immediately be a debt brick

23% voting is a low percentage of voters but is that necessarily bad? How many people do you know that you don't think should be allowed to vote because they have no knowledge/information on the candidates or issue or are ill-informed? Is it better that they don't vote? I would say it's better that they don't vote.

HI54UNI wrote:23% voting is a low percentage of voters but is that necessarily bad? How many people do you know that you don't think should be allowed to vote because they have no knowledge/information on the candidates or issue or are ill-informed? Is it better that they don't vote? I would say it's better that they don't vote.

In this case I believe the opposition party actively encouraged people to avoid voting as a statement.

But yeah there are a lot of people who shouldn't vote.

Nein on voter turnout threshold.

bandl wrote:Great, now there could be even MORE Nissan Maximas on the road

With low-riders. FML.