April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Political discussions

Who would you vote for today?

Poll ended at Wed May 15, 2019 12:15 pm

Trump no matter what
13
35%
The Democrat no matter what
10
27%
Third Party/Independent/Write-in/Blank no matter what
7
19%
Trump, unless the donks nominate ___, which is unlikely
1
3%
The Democrat, unless the donks nominate ____, which is unlikely.
0
No votes
Third Party or Independent, unless the donks nominate ____, which is unlikely.
3
8%
Fvck dis Schit what's the point 2020
3
8%
 
Total votes: 37

User avatar
Winterborn
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby Winterborn » Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:27 pm

Ivytalk wrote:
dbackjon wrote:

Do you know what I mean by cumulative voting?

What part of a Parliamentary government do you not like?

It’s unconstitutional in federal elections, but other than that...


Is that due to the 15th Amendment?

If so, I have just never heard it applied to this particular issue and genuinely curious why.

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14954
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby BDKJMU » Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:26 pm

dbackjon wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
I don't like narrow-minded, single-issue political groups. For all of their warts, I prefer the bigger umbrella political parties that bring those groups together. Or do you actually like political parties like the UKIP? The Weimar Republic and the flip flop coalitions are other great examples of the wonder of Parliamentary systems. I'll take our setup, warts and all.



No, I like our system better. However, the reality is we have single interest parties that are in a coalition to govern - Groups like the Freedom Caucus are no different than the UKIP, and have a disproportionate control over the GOP.

Which are no different than the CPC, with disproportionate control over the democrats in the House..

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21929
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby Ivytalk » Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:53 pm

dbackjon wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:It’s unconstitutional in federal elections, but other than that...


There is the Amendment process.


And cite where you think it is unconstitutional

It doesn’t work at the federal level with single-member districts, which we have had by statute in federal elections since the mid-60s. Trying to implement cumulative voting in single-member districts, even if mathematically possible, would run afoul of the one-person, one-vote concept established in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims.
Anything I post passes any rational test. — John StOnge 7/12/19

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 42337
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby dbackjon » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:13 am

Ivytalk wrote:
dbackjon wrote:
There is the Amendment process.


And cite where you think it is unconstitutional

It doesn’t work at the federal level with single-member districts, which we have had by statute in federal elections since the mid-60s. Trying to implement cumulative voting in single-member districts, even if mathematically possible, would run afoul of the one-person, one-vote concept established in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims.


Are you talking about states with only one representative?
Image
Image

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21929
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby Ivytalk » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:49 am

dbackjon wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:It doesn’t work at the federal level with single-member districts, which we have had by statute in federal elections since the mid-60s. Trying to implement cumulative voting in single-member districts, even if mathematically possible, would run afoul of the one-person, one-vote concept established in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims.


Are you talking about states with only one representative?

No. Every one of the 435 Congressional districts is single-member.
Anything I post passes any rational test. — John StOnge 7/12/19

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 42337
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby dbackjon » Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:30 am

Ivytalk wrote:
dbackjon wrote:
Are you talking about states with only one representative?

No. Every one of the 435 Congressional districts is single-member.


Not if you made them cumulative. Both the cases you cited dealt with districts of unequal population.

Example - Arizona has 9 seats. In cumulative voting a voter would get 9 votes. They could cast for 9 different candidates, or 3 each to 3, etc.

A third party could run one candidate, have it's members cast all 9 votes for that candidate, and hopefully be one of the top 9 vote getters.



It is funny, the Senate and the Electorial College both violate one-person one-vote rulings.
Image
Image

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21929
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby Ivytalk » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:58 pm

dbackjon wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:No. Every one of the 435 Congressional districts is single-member.


Not if you made them cumulative. Both the cases you cited dealt with districts of unequal population.

Example - Arizona has 9 seats. In cumulative voting a voter would get 9 votes. They could cast for 9 different candidates, or 3 each to 3, etc.

A third party could run one candidate, have it's members cast all 9 votes for that candidate, and hopefully be one of the top 9 vote getters.



It is funny, the Senate and the Electorial College both violate one-person one-vote rulings.

That’s why you have reapportionment after every census, to equalize (as much as possible) the single-member districts by population and determine how many seats each state gets, giving due regard to permissible demographic factors. Jon, your analysis improperly assumes that Arizona’s 9 reps are elected statewide on an at-large basis. No: each district elects only one. If you abolished districts altogether and just allocated a state’s seats every 10 years by population, you might have a basis to implement cumulative voting in the federal system. But that’s not the way the present system works. If you don’t like it, change the law. :twocents:
Anything I post passes any rational test. — John StOnge 7/12/19

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 42337
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby dbackjon » Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:48 pm

Ivytalk wrote:
dbackjon wrote:
Not if you made them cumulative. Both the cases you cited dealt with districts of unequal population.

Example - Arizona has 9 seats. In cumulative voting a voter would get 9 votes. They could cast for 9 different candidates, or 3 each to 3, etc.

A third party could run one candidate, have it's members cast all 9 votes for that candidate, and hopefully be one of the top 9 vote getters.



It is funny, the Senate and the Electorial College both violate one-person one-vote rulings.

That’s why you have reapportionment after every census, to equalize (as much as possible) the single-member districts by population and determine how many seats each state gets, giving due regard to permissible demographic factors. Jon, your analysis improperly assumes that Arizona’s 9 reps are elected statewide on an at-large basis. No: each district elects only one. If you abolished districts altogether and just allocated a state’s seats every 10 years by population, you might have a basis to implement cumulative voting in the federal system. But that’s not the way the present system works. If you don’t like it, change the law. :twocents:


That is exactly what I am proposing. Heck, this would likely help third parties.
Image
Image

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11635
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby SDHornet » Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:12 pm

kalm wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm saying vote your conscience. Is that really that difficult to comprehend? Saying "I'm a third party guy but I don't want to waste my vote" is more damning than voting for a third party guy with (assumingly) no chance of winning.

Voting for one of the two major parties is literally throwing your vote away because there's NO difference other than semantics.

But hey, you do you bro.


:nod:

And nothing changes.

It’s like the old Yogi Berra line...if you don’t go to other people’s funerals they won’t go to yours.

(I’m actually not sure if the two concepts are alike at all but since I’m quoting Z it seemed like a good fit here :mrgreen: )

:lol:

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11635
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby SDHornet » Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:15 pm

Ivytalk wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
I'm not casting a vote for Beto (dumb as bricks) or for Warren (too old and really more of a Senator than President), and certainly not for Trump (buffoon). Sanders I'm up in the air on - I would've voted for him last time, and would probably do so again. Depends on the makeup of Congress, though. Voting for him last time wouldn't have been a problem, he'd never would've gotten any of his more crazy ideas through Congress. I don't think the Senate is going Democratic this time around, but it could be close, so now he's more of a risk. Besides, he's old, so when push comes to shove, I'm voting for a younger person.

I thought you were more or less of a centrist. Your position makes no sense. You’d vote for Sanders only if you are convinced that none of his “more crazy ideas” would be enacted into law. Got it. Also, please let us know what his “less crazy ideas” are, beyond conventional Donk stuff.

Same thing came to mind. :lol:

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11635
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby SDHornet » Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:24 pm

I'm voting for Trump, because it's the economy dumbass...

...and also because it triggers the leftards. :lol:

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12334
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby GannonFan » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:18 pm

dbackjon wrote:It is funny, the Senate and the Electoral College both violate one-person one-vote rulings.


Well, technically they don't violate the one-person one-vote rulings because those rulings never claimed to be applicable to the Senate and the Electoral College. They were always restrained to state legislatures and to Congressional districts. Any Court, SCOTUS included, wouldn't be able to apply one-person one-vote to the Senate nor Electoral College because the Constitution is pretty clear how they are to work and it's not based on one-person one-vote. The Founders even went further when they drew up Article 5 and entrenched the idea of Senate (and by extension the Electoral College) being unchangeable without the consent of the State itself. Courts can't change it, you have to change the Constitution (and the entrenchment clause in Article 5 makes that Senate change almost rise to a level of unanimous consent if you're going to change the Senate and potentially by extension the Electoral College).
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
ALPHAGRIZ1
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14786
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:26 am
I am a fan of: 1995 Montana Griz
A.K.A.: **** Off
Location: America: and having my rights violated on a daily basis

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby ALPHAGRIZ1 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:47 pm

Gil Dobie wrote:
ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Exactly one

(Thatcher)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Gandhi, Golda Meir, Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Isabella I, etc
Exactly one

(Thatcher)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Image

ALPHAGRIZ1 - Now available in internet black

The flat earth society has members all around the globe

User avatar
ALPHAGRIZ1
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14786
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:26 am
I am a fan of: 1995 Montana Griz
A.K.A.: **** Off
Location: America: and having my rights violated on a daily basis

Re: RE: Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby ALPHAGRIZ1 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:52 pm

SDHornet wrote:I'm voting for Trump, because it's the economy dumbass...

...and also because it triggers the leftards.
Same here and he IS Third Party.

Americas President #TrumpTrain2020

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Image

ALPHAGRIZ1 - Now available in internet black

The flat earth society has members all around the globe

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: On the foggy woggy banks of the Limpopo River

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby UNI88 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:08 pm

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
SDHornet wrote:I'm voting for Trump, because it's the economy dumbass...

...and also because it triggers the leftards.
Same here and he IS Third Party.

Americas President #TrumpTrain2020

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Third Party or Third Rail?

TeumpTantrum2020 has an accurate ring to it (in that both sides are constantly throwing tantrums over things the other side says and does).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16403
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby houndawg » Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:59 pm

kalm wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm saying vote your conscience. Is that really that difficult to comprehend? Saying "I'm a third party guy but I don't want to waste my vote" is more damning than voting for a third party guy with (assumingly) no chance of winning.

Voting for one of the two major parties is literally throwing your vote away because there's NO difference other than semantics.

But hey, you do you bro.


:nod:

And nothing changes.

It’s like the old Yogi Berra line...if you don’t go to other people’s funerals they won’t go to yours.

(I’m actually not sure if the two concepts are alike at all but since I’m quoting Z it seemed like a good fit here :mrgreen: )



Willie Nelson.


its all just discussion as long as Citizens United remains.
Subvert the dominant paradigm

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 20159
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby CID1990 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:00 am

GannonFan wrote:
dbackjon wrote:It is funny, the Senate and the Electoral College both violate one-person one-vote rulings.


Well, technically they don't violate the one-person one-vote rulings because those rulings never claimed to be applicable to the Senate and the Electoral College. They were always restrained to state legislatures and to Congressional districts. Any Court, SCOTUS included, wouldn't be able to apply one-person one-vote to the Senate nor Electoral College because the Constitution is pretty clear how they are to work and it's not based on one-person one-vote. The Founders even went further when they drew up Article 5 and entrenched the idea of Senate (and by extension the Electoral College) being unchangeable without the consent of the State itself. Courts can't change it, you have to change the Constitution (and the entrenchment clause in Article 5 makes that Senate change almost rise to a level of unanimous consent if you're going to change the Senate and potentially by extension the Electoral College).


I’ll summarize Ganny here ... since some simple folk who don’t understand how a representative Republic works...

Amend the Constitution or STFU

or put another way -

Find 20 states willing to completely disenfranchise themselves by ratifying such a change - and then have at it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

∞∞∞
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9806
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:30 am

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby ∞∞∞ » Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:00 am

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is already at 14 states (and DC), with Oregon and Maine likely to join. It would also take it to 200 of 270 electoral votes required to enact the compact.

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 20159
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby CID1990 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:27 am

∞∞∞ wrote:The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is already at 14 states (and DC), with Oregon and Maine likely to join. It would also take it to 200 of 270 electoral votes required to enact the compact.


YAWN

All blue states.

The same ones which would ratify a Constitutional Amendment.

:coffee:

The mechanism of popular opinion which would bring the NPVIC to fruition is precisely the same one which would see the EC abolished by the amendment process. In other words, small states voting to disenfranchise themselves.

Not going to happen.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

∞∞∞
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9806
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:30 am

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby ∞∞∞ » Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:58 am

Dude, the EC is already warped beyond recognition. I'd even say it's broken.

The system was never meant to be bound by the public; states would select the electors (some through public voting) and electors would select the President. Tying the electors' hands to the public vote completely removes their primary reason for existence.

And state by state, the EC was never meant to be a "winner takes all" thing.

I mean we can talk about Constitutional changes, but if we're going to talk about the EC, it's important to recognize it's already twisted beyond its original intent (for the worst).

Stating otherwise would be disingenuous and misleading.

If we believe in democratic values, the President should be chosen by all citizens equally (regardless of what the founders thought). Small states can continue to have disproportionate power in the Senate.

User avatar
ALPHAGRIZ1
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14786
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:26 am
I am a fan of: 1995 Montana Griz
A.K.A.: **** Off
Location: America: and having my rights violated on a daily basis

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby ALPHAGRIZ1 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:04 am

Waaaaaaaaa we cant win so change the rules!

DEAL WITH IT!
Image

ALPHAGRIZ1 - Now available in internet black

The flat earth society has members all around the globe

∞∞∞
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9806
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:30 am

Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby ∞∞∞ » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:17 am

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Waaaaaaaaa we cant win so change the rules!

DEAL WITH IT!

Yeah that's it.

The EC was a barrier from having the majority elect a demagogue (ie. tyranny of the majority). Of course it's been flipped and perverted, essentially enabling a "tyranny of the minority" to do the exact same thing it was meant to stop. :roll:

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: On the foggy woggy banks of the Limpopo River

Re: RE: Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby UNI88 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:22 am

∞∞∞ wrote:
ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Waaaaaaaaa we cant win so change the rules!

DEAL WITH IT!

Yeah that's it.

The EC was a barrier from having the majority elect a demagogue (ie. tyranny of the majority). Of course it's been flipped and perverted , essentially enabling the "tyranny of the minority" to do the exact same things it was specifically meant to stop :roll:
IMO this would be a "be careful of what you wish for" / law of unintended consequences situation where the "cure" would be worse than the disease in the long run. I have more faith in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers than I do in our current political leaders (from either party) or the mobs who want change.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

∞∞∞
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9806
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:30 am

Re: RE: Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby ∞∞∞ » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:25 am

UNI88 wrote:
∞∞∞ wrote:Yeah that's it.

The EC was a barrier from having the majority elect a demagogue (ie. tyranny of the majority). Of course it's been flipped and perverted , essentially enabling the "tyranny of the minority" to do the exact same things it was specifically meant to stop :roll:
IMO this would be a "be careful of what you wish for" / law of unintended consequences situation where the "cure" would be worse than the disease in the long run. I have more faith in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers than I do in our current political leaders (from either party) or the mobs who want change.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Well if that's the case, we're not following what the founding fathers wanted.

If people here were actually originalists, we'd go back to electing the electors and/or allowing the state legislators to choose them, instead of tying electors to the winner of a popular vote in each state.

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: On the foggy woggy banks of the Limpopo River

Re: RE: Re: April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

Postby UNI88 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:35 am

∞∞∞ wrote:
UNI88 wrote:IMO this would be a "be careful of what you wish for" / law of unintended consequences situation where the "cure" would be worse than the disease in the long run. I have more faith in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers than I do in our current political leaders (from either party) or the mobs who want change.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Well if that's the case, we're not following what the founding fathers wanted.

If people here were actually originalists, we'd go back to electing the electors and/or allowing the state legislators to choose them, instead of tying electors to the winner of a popular vote in each state.


We're using the framework that the Founders established but you want to throw the baby out with the bath water because you don't like the results. Ben Franklin, John Adams, etc. were infinitely wiser and more farsighted than Bernie, Warren, Harris, AOC, Trump, etc. They were statesmen (not politicians) who were interested in the best interests of country rather than themselves and their constituencies.


Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests