Which continues to mean that republicans living in democratic states have their votes torn up and thrown in the trash. For president only. For everything else their vote counts.
Well, you can also say that Democrats living in certain states have their votes torn up and thrown away.
It’s still the only way that states get a voice in the election of the President. I believe they need it.
You throw out the EC and there is no reason that a candidate will ever visit 80% of the states and address their concerns. They won’t need to.
M
It’s also the only system that guarantees that millions of American votes will get torn up and thrown in the trash. You could have a couple kids that end up living in a democratic state for their entire lives and not once would their presidential vote not get torn up (if they vote like you).
Yes we all know it looks and feels great on our founding document. In practice though it doesn’t work like that. Want an example? Ok.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. That is the one where the where congress passes a law telling the states they couldn’t make their own laws concerning the purchase of alcohol to anything less than what big daddy federal said was the minimum. Signed by the great one himself Reagan.
Guess what? ALL of the states went into compliance regardless of the bellyaching. Why? Cause they weren’t about to give up the nice chunk of highway funds that was going to be withheld if they didn’t.
There are many more examples but they aren’t needed to illustrate that just as I said, the states only get to do what the federal government will let them do, and in the above example letting 18 to 20 year olds purchase alcohol wasn’t one of them.
Quite a few states in the past 15 or so years thought they were gonna be all powerful and pushes out laws stating homosexual people couldn’t marry. What do you know, here we are in 2019 with the SCOTUS telling them to get in line and yes you are going to recognize gay marriage. What did they do? Fell in line.
I’m sorry but the Constitution makes the states soveriegn and the 10th Amendment gives them the power of their sovereignty.
They are not all powerful and neither is the FedGov.
Each has a role in governing the American people. The EC is in place because with out it, the states with the least population would be ignored by the candidates.
There is no question that would be the case and the last election proves it, beyond question.
M
I’ve got time to waste.
I only told you I can see what you post as well as you and I never told you what you “mean” to say so I don’t know what that’s about.
Then don’t be among those who argue with me what they think I really meant when I SAY what I really meant. That’s a tired, old trope that goes on in these forums all the time.
It WASTES my time. If you want to waste your time feel free, but not with me. I will finally just ignore you and anyone else who does so.
M
Thats a lot of verbiage to not even come close to addressing the point I made which is right in front of your eyes every day you wake up. What the constitution says and how our government actually works are two very different things. If it weren’t there would be gay marriages all over the country and you wouldn’t have paid one red cent for Obamacare.
As for the EC, states with the least population are already ignored. Take a look. This image is all the election rallies made by Trump in 2016.
See all that open area in the upper midwest going down through the Texas panhandle. Hell remove Colorado and Iowa, he made less than a dozen stops in all the states west of the Mississippi total.
Candidates that already ignore states do so at their own peril.
Ask Hillary Clinton, who ignored Wisconsin and almost totally ignored Michigan.
She thought she could win on the states she had in the bag - the heavily-populated states - and she was wrong.
That’s why I love the EC and the small-population states love the EC.
And how our government works is the FedGov can make federal law and the states can make state law and the 10th Amendment spells out where the states have their power - even on national issues.
I’ll give you a perfect example: The 10th Amendment establishes that the FedGov cannot compell state and local authorites to arrest persons on federal crimes. That’s why we have all the problems with sanctuary cities, for instance. The state and locals can write laws that prevent their police from becoming defacto federal officers in the federal problem of illegal immigration.
M
Wisconsin and Michigan are not small population states they are both in the top 20 in terms of population. Yes Hillary did ignore said states and that was her fault. It doesn’t change the fact that not only she but Trump did the same thing which was ignore all the smaller states.
You loving the smaller states doesn’t mean anything. The EC doesn’t really do anything to help them the way you seem to think they do. Case in point the most recent election in 2016. Maybe Clinton does make a few more visits to a couple of larger states that were ignored. Maybe she wins those an all those small states mean nothing.
As for how the government works yet again you haven’t been paying attention. The Fed could absolutely compel state and local authorities to do their bidding. In the case of an issue like sanctuary cities, it would be pretty much as simple as telling the states if they don’t help them out reporting illegals they simply won’t devote any monetary funds towards anything else in the state. And the states would cower like little dogs.
Why doesn’t the fed do this? Simple because no one in the GOP especially the president have the nuts to attempt such a situation, never have, probably never will, because they know they couldn’t withstand the political heat from it, and their voters aka you would never hold them accountable to do so. You love lip service and scapegoats. Same reason the stupid ass wall isn’t being built. Congrats.
1 Like
They are small population states compared to the very few that a candidate would need if they were going only for a national popular vote.
And of course, there are MANY states that are far, far less populous that would be totally ignored - despite their obvious benefit to the country for being a state.
Alaska, screw you with your teensy population!!
And NO, the FedGOV cannot just tell the states they will receive no money. Where in hell did you get that??? When the FedGov denies a state any money that they are otherwise given by Congress they have to have a specific and connected reason - like the 55 mile speed limit to get federal funds to fix federal highways.
In fact, the FedGov already tried to connect federal money given to local law enforcement with the sanctuary cities and the courts said “NO WAY” - even though it is clearly a law enforcement issue.
M
Court makeups change. I seem to recall many cries of judicial activism when that ruling came down. So which is it? Do you agree with that ruling or do you understand the federal government can do what they will given the right circumstances?
Fact is almost exclusively the fed gets their way. Trump being a feckless moron cant get anyone to agree with him is his own fault.
And they have congressmen to look out for those interests, the presidents job is the country not states.
I can’t agree. There are many times that the FedGov doesn’t get their way. It just depends on the merits of the argument and as you say it can also comes down to which judge hears the case, but it is not a slam dunk for the FedGov, every time.
In this case I see the point of the states. They are squeezed between a person’s 4th amendment rights and the needs of the FedGov. I think they could be FAR MORE helpful to ICE, however, and let them know ASAP when they have an illegal in their posession, and do all they can - within the legal limits - to aid ICE in collecting them in a timely fashion.
They are instead going in the opposite direction - doing all they can to make sure ICE never knows of them, and certainly not in time to help them.
I think that borders on treason. It’s shameful.
M
Where is that written???
You seem to think that the only representation a state should have is in the Senate. Why? Does the president not affect the states, also??
This is EXACTLY why the EC was created - to make sure the states have a say in the administrator of the country they are a part of.
M
I cant think of too many times when the Fed doesnt get ther way, and when they do is pretty short lived. Less than a generation maybe two and it goes the other way. I times they havent it was pretty much lack of political will not the potential to force it.
States have a say in the administrator of the country they are a part of, citizens who live in the state vote for president.
Citizens are not always aware of the needs of the state. In fact they are rarely aware of anything but their own needs.
But you seem to want to negate the PROMISE made to the states when they became states in the frst place, which was that they would hold this power and privilege.
They will not give it up, easily.
M
I think you underestimate the power of the courts.
M
Yep they won’t.
