---

---

Where did I say I wanted a popular vote?

Are you for a popular vote?

No.
I would keep the electoral college but I would require the states to apportion all of their electors to the statewide result. 
this way no one has to be told that they're wasting their vote. a candidate like Gary Johnson might pick up an electoral vote or two in some of the larger States.
this way someone like Donald Trump has an incentive to try to compete in California because he should be able to win about 20 of their 50 plus votes.
and you get to keep the benefit of the electoral college, which is that nobody has to care if California suddenly lets some illegal immigrants vote. That problem will not be allowed to affect the vote total in any other state. A simple National popular vote would mean that the other states would have to fight California about who they allowed to vote or don't allow to vote.
Then if the first electoral college deadlocks with three or more candidates getting votes, and no candidate getting a majority, instead of going to the House, the same election should be run again with only the top two candidates.

---

I also think it's important to amend to the Constitution such that it's not easy to qualify to become president.
You should have to do a lot of financial disclosures and some sort of secret committee probably appointed by state governors or something should have to review them and say that you have no conflicts of interest before you can run.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

Are you for a popular vote?

No.
I would keep the electoral college but I would require the states to apportion all of their electors to the statewide result. 
this way no one has to be told that they're wasting their vote. a candidate like Gary Johnson might pick up an electoral vote or two in some of the larger States.
this way someone like Donald Trump has an incentive to try to compete in California because he should be able to win about 20 of their 50 plus votes.
and you get to keep the benefit of the electoral college, which is that nobody has to care if California suddenly lets some illegal immigrants vote. That problem will not be allowed to affect the vote total in any other state. A simple National popular vote would mean that the other states would have to fight California about who they allowed to vote or don't allow to vote.
Then if the first electoral college deadlocks with three or more candidates getting votes, and no candidate getting a majority, instead of going to the House, the same election should be run again with only the top two candidates.

---

I also think it's important to amend to the Constitution such that it's not easy to qualify to become president.
You should have to do a lot of financial disclosures and some sort of secret committee probably appointed by state governors or something should have to review them and say that you have no conflicts of interest before you can run.

I think the States would rightly tell you to piss off, that how they appoint their electors is up to them. If we're going to dream then I would radically change the process by eliminating the entire popular vote. Instead each State Legislature would appoint their 1 elector. That would make state elections matter, bring the political process (and influence) closer to home, and eliminate much of the waste of public campaigns. The candidate selection process is up to the parties, but there would be no General Election; the 50 States would elect the President, and the House would cast the deciding vote if needed. But nothing like that will ever happen, it takes too much power from the elites.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No.
I would keep the electoral college but I would require the states to apportion all of their electors to the statewide result. 
this way no one has to be told that they're wasting their vote. a candidate like Gary Johnson might pick up an electoral vote or two in some of the larger States.
this way someone like Donald Trump has an incentive to try to compete in California because he should be able to win about 20 of their 50 plus votes.
and you get to keep the benefit of the electoral college, which is that nobody has to care if California suddenly lets some illegal immigrants vote. That problem will not be allowed to affect the vote total in any other state. A simple National popular vote would mean that the other states would have to fight California about who they allowed to vote or don't allow to vote.
Then if the first electoral college deadlocks with three or more candidates getting votes, and no candidate getting a majority, instead of going to the House, the same election should be run again with only the top two candidates.

---

I also think it's important to amend to the Constitution such that it's not easy to qualify to become president.
You should have to do a lot of financial disclosures and some sort of secret committee probably appointed by state governors or something should have to review them and say that you have no conflicts of interest before you can run.

I think the States would rightly tell you to piss off, that how they appoint their electors is up to them. If we're going to dream then I would radically change the process by eliminating the entire popular vote. Instead each State Legislature would appoint their 1 elector. That would make state elections matter, bring the political process (and influence) closer to home, and eliminate much of the waste of public campaigns. The candidate selection process is up to the parties, but there would be no General Election; the 50 States would elect the President, and the House would cast the deciding vote if needed. But nothing like that will ever happen, it takes too much power from the elites.

We're both dreaming of a constitutional amendment here.  I think the lesson of the 17th amendment is that state legislators want to hear what the people have to say on state matters only.  They preferred not to involve themselves in DC's fights.  Your idea that each state should simply get one vote is more like how the EU appoints its President. When French people vote for the President of France, they don't give much thought to, "I wonder who he will vote for to be EU President?"  Because the EU president doesn't have much actual power.  The US President has much more power.  If our governor or legislature had control over Florida's one vote for President, it would be the only thing our press would want to ask them about.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

Are you for a popular vote?

No.
I would keep the electoral college but I would require the states to apportion all of their electors to the statewide result. 
this way no one has to be told that they're wasting their vote. a candidate like Gary Johnson might pick up an electoral vote or two in some of the larger States.
this way someone like Donald Trump has an incentive to try to compete in California because he should be able to win about 20 of their 50 plus votes.
and you get to keep the benefit of the electoral college, which is that nobody has to care if California suddenly lets some illegal immigrants vote. That problem will not be allowed to affect the vote total in any other state. A simple National popular vote would mean that the other states would have to fight California about who they allowed to vote or don't allow to vote.
Then if the first electoral college deadlocks with three or more candidates getting votes, and no candidate getting a majority, instead of going to the House, the same election should be run again with only the top two candidates.

---

I also think it's important to amend to the Constitution such that it's not easy to qualify to become president.
You should have to do a lot of financial disclosures and some sort of secret committee probably appointed by state governors or something should have to review them and say that you have no conflicts of interest before you can run.

TDS.  I don't think he's articulate enough so let's amend the constitution over and over until I feel better.  Now that's conservatism u can believe in!!!

---

No.
I would keep the electoral college but I would require the states to apportion all of their electors to the statewide result. 
this way no one has to be told that they're wasting their vote. a candidate like Gary Johnson might pick up an electoral vote or two in some of the larger States.
this way someone like Donald Trump has an incentive to try to compete in California because he should be able to win about 20 of their 50 plus votes.
and you get to keep the benefit of the electoral college, which is that nobody has to care if California suddenly lets some illegal immigrants vote. That problem will not be allowed to affect the vote total in any other state. A simple National popular vote would mean that the other states would have to fight California about who they allowed to vote or don't allow to vote.
Then if the first electoral college deadlocks with three or more candidates getting votes, and no candidate getting a majority, instead of going to the House, the same election should be run again with only the top two candidates.

---

I also think it's important to amend to the Constitution such that it's not easy to qualify to become president.
You should have to do a lot of financial disclosures and some sort of secret committee probably appointed by state governors or something should have to review them and say that you have no conflicts of interest before you can run.

TDS.  I don't think he's articulate enough so let's amend the constitution over and over until I feel better.  Now that's conservatism u can believe in!!!

I don't know who you think you're arguing against but it's not me.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

TDS.  I don't think he's articulate enough so let's amend the constitution over and over until I feel better.  Now that's conservatism u can believe in!!!

I don't know who you think you're arguing against but it's not me.

https://youtu.be/2g5Hz17C4is

---

I don't know who you think you're arguing against but it's not me.

https://youtu.be/2g5Hz17C4is

Show me where in this thread I said we needed to make a change because the guy who won last time is inarticulate.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Oh I'm sorry. I was sarcastically mocking your depiction of "demagogue". I thought it was obvious but... Oh well.

---

I think the States would rightly tell you to piss off, that how they appoint their electors is up to them. If we're going to dream then I would radically change the process by eliminating the entire popular vote. Instead each State Legislature would appoint their 1 elector. That would make state elections matter, bring the political process (and influence) closer to home, and eliminate much of the waste of public campaigns. The candidate selection process is up to the parties, but there would be no General Election; the 50 States would elect the President, and the House would cast the deciding vote if needed. But nothing like that will ever happen, it takes too much power from the elites.

We're both dreaming of a constitutional amendment here.  I think the lesson of the 17th amendment is that state legislators want to hear what the people have to say on state matters only.  They preferred not to involve themselves in DC's fights.  Your idea that each state should simply get one vote is more like how the EU appoints its President. When French people vote for the President of France, they don't give much thought to, "I wonder who he will vote for to be EU President?"  Because the EU president doesn't have much actual power.  The US President has much more power.  If our governor or legislature had control over Florida's one vote for President, it would be the only thing our press would want to ask them about.

Yep, the Presidential election should be irrelevant to the common citizen because that office should have little power, influence, or importance in our daily lives. Like I said, pipe dream when three quarters of the country is begging for the government to rule them rather than serve them.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Oh I'm sorry.  I was sarcastically mocking your depiction of "demagogue".  I thought it was obvious but...  Oh well.

while we have been alive ,plenty of articulate men have held the office, and yet I called everybody who has been president since we have been alive a demagogue. I thought I said that from the beginning and made it obvious but... Oh well.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Oh I'm sorry.  I was sarcastically mocking your depiction of "demagogue".  I thought it was obvious but...  Oh well.

while we have been alive ,plenty of articulate men have held the office, and yet I called everybody who has been president since we have been alive a demagogue. I thought I said that from the beginning and made it obvious but... Oh well.

Yeh yeh, they didn't meet your personal standards so let's change the constitution to assuage your disgust of common people and those they elect.

---

Right, let's give all the power to like 5 cities. Democracies do not work and are not fair or just. In a true democracy, the majority can disenfranchise the minority and legislate all kinds of horrible things. We live in a Constitutional Republic, our Forefathers were wise....

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Right, let's give all the power to like 5 cities. Democracies do not work and are not fair or just. In a true democracy, the majority can disenfranchise the minority and legislate all kinds of horrible things. We live in a Constitutional Republic, our Forefathers were wise....

20 million people live in the New York metropolitan area.
About 13 million people live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. 
Then about 10 million people live in the Chicago metropolitan area.
The next two areas are Houston and Dallas with about 7 million people each

So the top five cities have 57 million people.
Meanwhile the entire country has 330 million people.

57 / 330 is 17%.

do you really think that people will be able to control elections with 17% of the vote?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Right, let's give all the power to like 5 cities. Democracies do not work and are not fair or just. In a true democracy, the majority can disenfranchise the minority and legislate all kinds of horrible things. We live in a Constitutional Republic, our Forefathers were wise....

20 million people live in the New York metropolitan area.
About 13 million people live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. 
Then about 10 million people live in the Chicago metropolitan area.
The next two areas are Houston and Dallas with about 7 million people each

So the top five cities have 57 million people.
Meanwhile the entire country has 330 million people.

57 / 330 is 17%.

do you really think that people will be able to control elections with 17% of the vote?

If the Electoral College was abolished and the president elected simply by a majority in the national vote, the majority of people from smaller, less populated states would lose their voice in presidential election.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Right, let's give all the power to like 5 cities. Democracies do not work and are not fair or just. In a true democracy, the majority can disenfranchise the minority and legislate all kinds of horrible things. We live in a Constitutional Republic, our Forefathers were wise....

20 million people live in the New York metropolitan area.
About 13 million people live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. 
Then about 10 million people live in the Chicago metropolitan area.
The next two areas are Houston and Dallas with about 7 million people each

So the top five cities have 57 million people.
Meanwhile the entire country has 330 million people.

57 / 330 is 17%.

do you really think that people will be able to control elections with 17% of the vote?

You are forgetting that only 125 million actually vote.

---

20 million people live in the New York metropolitan area.
About 13 million people live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. 
Then about 10 million people live in the Chicago metropolitan area.
The next two areas are Houston and Dallas with about 7 million people each

So the top five cities have 57 million people.
Meanwhile the entire country has 330 million people.

57 / 330 is 17%.

do you really think that people will be able to control elections with 17% of the vote?

If the Electoral College was abolished and the president elected simply by a majority in the national vote, the majority of people from smaller, less populated states would lose their voice in presidential election.

Most of them have no voice now.  The last time an outcome changed based on what a small state did was 2000. Gore could have won if he had won New Hampshire, and he did not lose New Hampshire by much. Since that time, no state with ten or fewer votes has really mattered in the math. The big swing States decide everything.

---

20 million people live in the New York metropolitan area.
About 13 million people live in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. 
Then about 10 million people live in the Chicago metropolitan area.
The next two areas are Houston and Dallas with about 7 million people each

So the top five cities have 57 million people.
Meanwhile the entire country has 330 million people.

57 / 330 is 17%.

do you really think that people will be able to control elections with 17% of the vote?

You are forgetting that only 125 million actually vote.

if you're only going to count actual voters in the denominator, then you should only count actual voters in the numerator as well. The ratio works out to about 17%, regardless.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If the Electoral College was abolished and the president elected simply by a majority in the national vote, the majority of people from smaller, less populated states would lose their voice in presidential election.

Most of them have no voice now.  The last time an outcome changed based on what a small state did was 2000. Gore could have won if he had won New Hampshire, and he did not lose New Hampshire by much. Since that time, no state with ten or fewer votes has really mattered in the math. The big swing States decide everything.

---

You are forgetting that only 125 million actually vote.

if you're only going to count actual voters in the denominator, then you should only count actual voters in the numerator as well. The ratio works out to about 17%, regardless.

Not sure how the numbers are the same if highly populated liberal cities have higher voter turnout and take up a bigger piece of the 125 million "pie".

---

Most of them have no voice now.  The last time an outcome changed based on what a small state did was 2000. Gore could have won if he had won New Hampshire, and he did not lose New Hampshire by much. Since that time, no state with ten or fewer votes has really mattered in the math. The big swing States decide everything.

---

if you're only going to count actual voters in the denominator, then you should only count actual voters in the numerator as well. The ratio works out to about 17%, regardless.

Not sure how the numbers are the same if highly populated liberal cities have higher voter turnout and take up a bigger piece of the 125 million "pie".

I said they would be about the same. 
And the reason I put that extra word "about" in there was because the turnout rate can vary.
But it does not vary by much. Give me an example of why you think this is a problem. Can you show me a city that has a really high turnout in presidential elections compared to a rural area that has really low turnout? How big is the difference?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

rehash

---

Not sure how the numbers are the same if highly populated liberal cities have higher voter turnout and take up a bigger piece of the 125 million "pie".

I said they would be about the same. 
And the reason I put that extra word "about" in there was because the turnout rate can vary.
But it does not vary by much. Give me an example of why you think this is a problem. Can you show me a city that has a really high turnout in presidential elections compared to a rural area that has really low turnout? How big is the difference?

How does that 17% of NYC's population compare to the total state population of Idaho?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato