Why National Popular Vote Is A Bad Idea

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Are you saying that you support a Marxist national popular vote? You want to leave the flyover states out of the system and allow only the west and east coast to decide all of our elections? Because in a Constitutional Republic, what prevails is a representative government. It's not about mob rule or popular vote.

Our whole system has had a remarkable outcome which helps to keep out people who are not suitable for the office. If Donald Trump can't participate in the system that's been set up for generations, he needs to drop out.

Keep in mind that Obama won the popular vote, but also won the delegates. The only difference between Obama and Trump is, Obama won MORE than 37% of the popular vote. Obama won 51.1%.

Oh be quiet. Did I even hint at wanting to abolish the electoral college? Geesh.

Brother, I am for abolishing the 17th Amendment. That should tell you something.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Oh be quiet. Did I even hint at wanting to abolish the electoral college? Geesh.

Brother, I am for abolishing the 17th Amendment. That should tell you something.

Trying to rest on the popular vote during the primaries and the caucuses is the same thing. Popular vote is getting 50.1%. Trump isn't getting the delegates because he is only at 37% of the popular. Trying to argue in favor of him, at this stage, is a bit ludicrous.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Trying to rest on the popular vote during the primaries and the caucuses is the same thing. Popular vote is getting 50.1%. Trump isn't getting the delegates because he is only at 37% of the popular. Trying to argue in favor of him, at this stage, is a bit ludicrous.

It's not the same thing. You are comparing the States with private political parties. I guess private parties can choose their delegates any way they like within the laws of the various States. The States do not choose delegates, the parties do, and usually let the people do the "choosing" as long as they are rubber stamping the establishment choice.
It's disingenuous to have a primary to choose delegates only to award the delegates to another candidate the state party prefers. Sure, they can do it. But you can expect the people to push back. But, until the people change the party rules, they need not complain. It's the same with the States. Why haven't the States invoked Article 5 yet?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It's not the same thing. You are comparing the States with private political parties. I guess private parties can choose their delegates any way they like within the laws of the various States. The States do not choose delegates, the parties do, and usually let the people do the "choosing" as long as they are rubber stamping the establishment choice.
It's disingenuous to have a primary to choose delegates only to award the delegates to another candidate the state party prefers. Sure, they can do it. But you can expect the people to push back. But, until the people change the party rules, they need not complain. It's the same with the States. Why haven't the States invoked Article 5 yet?

It is the same thing - both processes have RULES. All the campaigns KNEW the rules. Donald is pretending that he and his supporters are being disenfranchised because he is losing. He is pretending he doesn't know the rules, but he does. Most of the people working for him are Democrats. His own children can't follow the rules by registering as Republicans. They don't want to, because none of them are Republicans.