Can't unsee.
EDIT: Who in the democratic party looks like Picard?
"Make it so, number one."
Can't unsee.
EDIT: Who in the democratic party looks like Picard?
The "interesting movement" he refers to will be a clusterf*ck that will make Bush v. Gore look like a schoolyard slap fight.
Doesn't sound legal for states to make treaties with other states.
Can't unsee.
EDIT: Who in the democratic party looks like Picard?
fivethirtyeight has it 50.8% to 48.0% currently. If turnout is comparable to 2004 & 2008, that means Obama wins by over 3.1-3.3 million votes. Closer than last time when he won by 9.5 million, but still a large number.Popular polling shows Obama mid-40's% to Romney mid-40's%.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a 5th generation member and a priest in the satanically inspired Mormon cult. He and others in his cult LIE when they claim to be Christians, since Mormon doctrine is 100% inconsistent with Biblical Christianity and a Mormon is no more a Christian than a Muslim is.
Commander Rip Swanson.Does he look more like Rip Torn, Ron Swanson, or Commander Riker?
Is it too late for Al Gore to run again?
"Make it so, number one."
I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not constitutional and that liberals are going to flip out once they see the compact will actually do.Not at all; the interstate compact is very logical. States can determine how to award their votes; Nebraska, for example, does it proportionately. If states worth 270 electoral votes decide to award their electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote rather than their state popular vote, the electoral college becomes defunct.
I went off pollingreport.com and just eyeballed a rough average of the last few major polls, but whatever, it doesn't change that the popular vote is going to be a lot tighter than the EC. With the EC, Romney might as well pack it in, with a popular vote, it's still a race.fivethirtyeight has it 50.8% to 48.0% currently. If turnout is comparable to 2004 & 2008, that means Obama wins by over 3.1-3.3 million votes. Closer than last time when he won by 9.5 million, but still a large number.
No state would be "in play," they'd just focus on populous regions. The Midwest and much of the south west would be even more "flyover country" than they are now. But you're right on track in terms of costs. If you want money to play a larger role in presidential politics, support a national popular vote for president. If you want money to be all-encompassing, front load the nomination process with big states like CA, TX, FL, and NY.No way either party will get rid of the EC. Right now, they only have to focus on a few states, but going with a poplar vote, it would put every state into play since every vote would be just as important. The amount of time and money needed would blow away what's being spent now.
He also looks so much better with a beard.
So much better.
I'm strangely turned on by him now.
That's an adorable little opinion you got there baby face. If you need me I'll be over here running a comb through my LUXURIOUS BEARD.
I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not constitutional and that liberals are going to flip out once they see the compact will actually do.
While the electoral college becomes de facto defunct once the compact gets 270, because of the way it's structured, de jure the non-compact states are still choosing their electors however they want. So a non-compact WY voter (for example) will technically get counted more than a compact-state CA voter. Once by their own state, and again by each state that's a compact member (1+X times, where X=# of compact member states.) Mean while, a compact state voter only get counted be each state that's a compact member (X times.)
And I suspect that the first time a solidly D state (say CA) goes R due to the pact (and vice versa,) there will be huge protests.
If you want money to play a larger role in presidential politics, support a national popular vote for president. If you want money to be all-encompassing, front load the nomination process with big states like CA, TX, FL, and NY.
If he rocked that beard during the election he would have won (and gotten mad White House pussy).
Interesting timing. Eliminating the EC today would decrease Obama's chances significantly.
No, public facial hair is political suicide; because as cool as it looks to some, to others it might look as if he's a hobo or doesn't have it all together in his head.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that part's legal. It's the part where member states count non-member states voters twice that is going to be the sticky wicket.
I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not constitutional and that liberals are going to flip out once they see the compact will actually do.
I apologize for being unclear. One thing that I do want to be very clear about is that you can support electing the President by popular vote while recognizing that The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an awful way of trying to reach that goal. The Compact is a bad idea for a number of reasons, primarily:Sorry, I can't tell if you're arguing here that this perceived imbalance is the source of its unconstitutionality, or if you're arguing that it's the source of the anger.
By the design of the compact, you're right it doesn't matter what the non-compact states do. Constitutionally, however, it does. The non-member states may be functionally moot, but they are still on the books.Also, I'm not sure it matters de jure what the other states do. 270+ is the same as 538 in effect; the president is elected. No formal powers extend from running up the margin. Insofar as there is "political capital", it's a function of actual voters on the ground and their support for the presidential bully pulpit, not the scoreboard.
I would bet that a poll would show that voters in states that have already passed the Compact are almost completely ignorant of it. Anecdotally, I live on the border of one of the states and I have yet to meet someone in person who knows what it is even though I run in some fairly political circles.I think the compact states will make the argument that they didn't go "R" or "D", no matter what the technical outcome is. The country went "R" or "D". I find it hard to believe states would bother to make such a substantive change but fail so utterly at explaining it.
At that point, you're making such a fundamental change to the American federal infrastructure that you're better off having a Constitutional Convention.You are correct when you say this, but is this the point where I point out that the solution to the issue of representation in presidential selection isn't tweaking the formula that elects a president, it's neutering the presidency and making the US a parliamentary democracy, and taking districting out of the hands of partisans and into the hands of technocrats? No? No one cares about Canada and Europe?
One potential way around that Constitutional question would be for the Compact to only count the popular vote in the member states.
I would bet that a poll would show that voters in states that have already passed the Compact are almost completely ignorant of it. Anecdotally, I live on the border of one of the states and I have yet to meet someone in person who knows what it is even though I run in some fairly political circles.
Same as the fallout when Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Oh wait, there wasn't any. :OI'm curious what the fallout would look like if Romney won the popular vote this year and lost the election.
Same as the fallout when Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Oh wait, there wasn't any. :O
Same as the fallout when Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Oh wait, there wasn't any. :O
No doubt they're infinitely more rabid than they were then, but all Dems would have to do it say the same thing happened in 2000 for Gore and move on.Maybe it's just me, but it just seems like conservatives are a little more rabid nowadays. You're probably right though.
I'm surprised that one of the most geopolitical democracies in the world is pushing to centralize their vote into a single, homogeneous blob. The Midwest might as well separate.
Congress already serves as a counterbalance to this by being proportionately represented.It's not as if there isn't a rather substantial weighting towards regional interests in the senate, for which California enjoys the same representation as Vermont. The current process for presidential election is basically proportional with a margin of error, which is just about the least ideal option.
The beard stopped with Garfield and the mustache with Taft Literally no US senator has facial hair today.
Canada's last leader of the opposition had a mustache, but if you want awesome facial hair in politics, it's basically the Muslim world or bust
The beard stopped with Garfield and the mustache with Taft Literally no US senator has facial hair today.
Canada's last leader of the opposition had a mustache, but if you want awesome facial hair in politics, it's basically the Muslim world or bust
That's an awesome beard? He looks like Al Borland