April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

[Winterborn]

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.

[BDKJMU]

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]

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.

[dbackjon]

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?

[Ivytalk]

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.

[dbackjon]

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.

[Ivytalk]

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.

[dbackjon]

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.

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

[SDHornet]

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.

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 )

[SDHornet]

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.

[SDHornet]

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

...and also because it triggers the leftards.

[GannonFan]

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).

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

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

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

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

[UNI88]

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]

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.

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 )

Willie Nelson.


its all just discussion as long as Citizens United remains.

[CID1990]

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

[∞∞∞]

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.

[CID1990]

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.



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.

[∞∞∞]

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.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Waaaaaaaaa we cant win so change the rules!

DEAL WITH IT!

[∞∞∞]

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.

[UNI88]

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

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

[∞∞∞]

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

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.

[UNI88]

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.