Colorado joins National Popular Vote Compact

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,505
2,161
743
Where else but Stillwater
#61
I cannot be wrong on my own opinion... that wasn't even a good try.

If the STATES elect somebody, then I'm down with it, until and unless we can get them out of office... just like King Barack, Slick Willy, The Peanut Farmer and all the rest of the America haters.

They won by being elected by the States, and we all lived with the results.

You apparently cannot.
LOL, I still wouldn't dare trust you all to always support the Republic's way of selecting the president.

Facts are facts. Opinions are just opinions.
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,505
2,161
743
Where else but Stillwater
#63
Holy Christ you're dense. Make that DENSE.

Is Oklahoma City urban, or rural?




Of course you would. It's just your opinion thrown out as fact, nothing more.
Seriously, gundysburner, just why do you ask such a profoundly stupid question? Of course, Oklahoma City is urban. The difference between the urban and rural vote in Oklahoma can be quite startling.

Many opinions in this forum are thrown out as FACT.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
6,436
6,025
1,743
Tulsa
#64
Seriously, gundysburner, just why do you ask such a profoundly stupid question? Of course, Oklahoma City is urban. The difference between the urban and rural vote in Oklahoma can be quite startling.

Many opinions in this forum are thrown out as FACT.
And most of your opinions should just be thrown out.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
6,436
6,025
1,743
Tulsa
#66
Townie, if you really want peoples votes to count then here is a simple solution. Give out electoral college votes based on each congressional district. So if a R wins the district that EC vote go to him/her regardless of the states total vote. That way the D's will win the inner cities and the R's will win the sane areas. Dims wont allow it though because of CA's 54 EC votes. Quite a few would then go to the R's. Upstate NY would go R. Some of TX (you know the geniuses that elect Shelia Jackson Lee) would go Dim. But at the end of the day, the map of the country would be awfully Red. And it would force candidates to actually visit most if not all the districts, not just the cities.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,560
2,438
1,743
So Cal
#67
LOL, I still wouldn't dare trust you all to always support the Republic's way of selecting the president.

Facts are facts. Opinions are just opinions.
and for just once, I wish you would present some facts. You keep stating your opinion on how you think others would react, and you keep saying you don't trust anybody, even when we're sitting here saying it straight to your face..... and you present NO FACTS.

None.

No facts, not ever, not on any subject.

facts are facts.... please start using them
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,467
3,148
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#68
Townie, if you really want peoples votes to count then here is a simple solution. Give out electoral college votes based on each congressional district. So if a R wins the district that EC vote go to him/her regardless of the states total vote. That way the D's will win the inner cities and the R's will win the sane areas. Dims wont allow it though because of CA's 54 EC votes. Quite a few would then go to the R's. Upstate NY would go R. Some of TX (you know the geniuses that elect Shelia Jackson Lee) would go Dim. But at the end of the day, the map of the country would be awfully Red. And it would force candidates to actually visit most if not all the districts, not just the cities.
I like it.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,467
3,148
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#69
Humans being humans, will RxCowboy, ostater2319, ILcoolw and oks10 change their minds about the Electoral College if and when Democrats start winning it, but not the popular vote. Considering the intense hatred and resentment they have against Democrats, there is no way on earth I would bet on it they wouldn't. With rural areas mostly on the decline and most large urban areas expanding, it may not take more than a generation. Oklahoma City going Democrat for the 5th congressional district could be a hint of what is to come.
You calling me of jeffe? Sorry American Dad reference. Can't help it. Anyway, you detect hatred from me against Dems, liberals and city dwellers? Not my intention at all. I was the only Okie that voted for Gore in 2000. I've been on both sides of electoral defeat. Pro Gore, Con Hilary. What you should be detecting from me is a sense of fear and angst. I miss the old Dem party after I've seen the new Dem and I can say the same for the Repubs as well. You know I'm libertarian so I have a healthy respect for true liberalism and true conservatism. We aren't seeing that anymore. I'm disgusted more with the left as losing exposes true character and that's disappointing. Now they are losing their moderates by the second and need to replenish the base. All that's left are unaborted children, the sedated, and illegal immigrants and that's not going to cut it. Since it's not enough, they're going to change the rules. Again. Real leadership would figure out why they lost, apologize and change course. Not set the ship for ramming speed and aim for the icebergs. As much as they deserve it, they're pulling us along for the ride.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,204
3,569
743
49
#70
it's not just "the Constitution"... it's THE REPUBLIC.

Electoral College represents a Republic.

Eliminating the Electoral College represents a Democracy.

Democracy = bad

how many dang times do we have to tell you this stuff?

Honestly, it just not that hard to understand.
Once again, it's all in the Constitution. And it's totally irrelevant that women couldn't vote and many blacks were slaves back when the Constitution was written.
You know I think that's one of the most intelligent things I've ever heard you say. You're absolutely correct that it is irrelevant because both of those issues have been taken care of. But that doesn't negate the electoral college or the republic form of government we use.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,204
3,569
743
49
#71
What are you even talking about?

And no, I wouldn't change my tune. The EC is not broken. It doesn't need to be changed. The losers who got more individual votes need to focus their efforts on winning EC votes not individual votes.

It's like they didn't read the rule book, then complain when they lost because they didn't understand the rules. Then try to change the rules to their misunderstanding of them.

Now, you can can argue "winner take all" and gerrymandering have an undue effect on the EC, and I would probably agree with you.
Humans being humans, will RxCowboy, ostater2319, ILcoolw and oks10 change their minds about the Electoral College if and when Democrats start winning it, but not the popular vote. Considering the intense hatred and resentment they have against Democrats, there is no way on earth I would bet on it they wouldn't. With rural areas mostly on the decline and most large urban areas expanding, it may not take more than a generation. Oklahoma City going Democrat for the 5th congressional district could be a hint of what is to come.
You still don't understand what conservatives believe. You just love sitting up these straw man arguments to knock them down.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,200
353
163
48
Boulder, CO
#72
You calling me of jeffe? Sorry American Dad reference. Can't help it. Anyway, you detect hatred from me against Dems, liberals and city dwellers? Not my intention at all. I was the only Okie that voted for Gore in 2000. I've been on both sides of electoral defeat. Pro Gore, Con Hilary. What you should be detecting from me is a sense of fear and angst. I miss the old Dem party after I've seen the new Dem and I can say the same for the Repubs as well. You know I'm libertarian so I have a healthy respect for true liberalism and true conservatism. We aren't seeing that anymore. I'm disgusted more with the left as losing exposes true character and that's disappointing. Now they are losing their moderates by the second and need to replenish the base. All that's left are unaborted children, the sedated, and illegal immigrants and that's not going to cut it. Since it's not enough, they're going to change the rules. Again. Real leadership would figure out why they lost, apologize and change course. Not set the ship for ramming speed and aim for the icebergs. As much as they deserve it, they're pulling us along for the ride.
Exactly.

As a Libertarian, too, I agree.

What I've said for years is that you have both sides, & the 5-10% of each side does everything they can to garner publicity, attention, etc..., but the truth is that the majority of the population resides somewhere in the middle, depending on the issue.

This is a lot of the reason that I've always thought it was beneficial for neither of the 2 parties to have the Presidency, the Senate, & the House. I've always loved the system of checks & balances it offers, & more importantly in the end, that balance is critical, imo.

What we have now, unfortunately, is the fringe element of each party getting all the attention they want because they know how the media game is played, & a media completely along for the ride. How many articles have you seen the headline for & clicked on, only to go "well, that's part of the story, but..."? It's a daily exercise for me.

So, like you, I'm filled somewhat with angst. But I'd add that, eh, some things are cyclical & simply blown out of proportion in present time & really lack any historical context.

Lastly, for liberal progressives to assume they have some massive mandate is as tone deaf as the DNC was in 2016. The minority party gaining seats in a midterm isn't nearly the mandate they think it is, nor is it historically unique.

I don't expect the loud, progressive wave to understand the value of moderate Dems at all, which I think will bite them. Naive freshman like AOC & others live in an echo chamber online & in their districts. They think they've been given some mandate they simply have not, outside their District, just like some Repubs.

Moving toward the middle, imo, is the best political strategy moving forward, imo.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,204
3,569
743
49
#73
Humans being humans, will RxCowboy, ostater2319, ILcoolw and oks10 change their minds about the Electoral College if and when Democrats start winning it, but not the popular vote. Considering the intense hatred and resentment they have against Democrats, there is no way on earth I would bet on it they wouldn't. With rural areas mostly on the decline and most large urban areas expanding, it may not take more than a generation. Oklahoma City going Democrat for the 5th congressional district could be a hint of what is to come.
my gawd.... you really don't get it.....

we don't care as much about WHO gets elected as we do about HOW they get elected.


YOU are the one insisting on WHO gets in and HOW you get them in.

The EC is about State Sovereignty - not about who you like as a candidate.
And the HOW directly relates to why conservatives want to eliminate voter fraud and require IDs to vote.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,824
6,623
1,743
Yukon, OK
#74
What are you even talking about?

And no, I wouldn't change my tune. The EC is not broken. It doesn't need to be changed. The losers who got more individual votes need to focus their efforts on winning EC votes not individual votes.

It's like they didn't read the rule book, then complain when they lost because they didn't understand the rules. Then try to change the rules to their misunderstanding of them.

Now, you can can argue "winner take all" and gerrymandering have an undue effect on the EC, and I would probably agree with you.
Humans being humans, will RxCowboy, ostater2319, ILcoolw and oks10 change their minds about the Electoral College if and when Democrats start winning it, but not the popular vote. Considering the intense hatred and resentment they have against Democrats, there is no way on earth I would bet on it they wouldn't. With rural areas mostly on the decline and most large urban areas expanding, it may not take more than a generation. Oklahoma City going Democrat for the 5th congressional district could be a hint of what is to come.
Well, I WAS going to just sit this one out but you called me out by name so here I am. ;) The answer to your question is no. If Republicans won the popular vote and lost the electoral then it is what it is. If I were upset about it, it would be with the candidate not the process. We don't elect our president by popular vote, we elect by electoral college. If you fail to game plan with that basic understanding of how the process works, then that's your own damn fault and you deserved to lose. Trying to change the rules bc you lost to arguably one of the most beatable candidates America has ever had is just being a sore loser.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Jul 22, 2011
1,462
2,222
743
#75
I haven't seen anyone discuss the unintended consequences of this and that is how does it affect a viable 3rd party candidate. We had Green and Libertarian candidates on most ballots last election. Do you think the two political parties won't do everything possible to prevent that in a race that could be decided by a few million votes? You think the 2 party's have a stranglehold on politics now, do away with the EC and see how quickly it gets worse.

Or the flip side, what if Bernie and AOC form the American Workers Party and splits the liberal vote. The winner of the popular vote might not always have a majority.
This 13-state pact is the absolute worst thing to happen to third party candidacy. I felt like my vote really didn’t count in Oklahoma, so why not throw it away on principle. Turning blue EC votes red gives me yet another reason to hold my nose and vote for Trump. My apologies to Vermin Supreme in 2020.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,342
23,769
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#76
This 13-state pact is the absolute worst thing to happen to third party candidacy. I felt like my vote really didn’t count in Oklahoma, so why not throw it away on principle. Turning blue EC votes red gives me yet another reason to hold my nose and vote for Trump. My apologies to Vermin Supreme in 2020.
Exactly right.. Elections have become less about voting for the best candidate and more about voting against the worst one, as all we get are bad choices anymore. In the last election, I encouraged everybody in a state that was relatively safe red or blue, to vote 3rd party (Green or Libertarian) and send a message to these dolts in DC. But with a national popular vote, my vote in 2016 would have changed form sending a message by voting for Johnson, to voting solely against Hillary, which would mean voting for Trump. The popular vote was decided by less than 3 million votes while Johnson got 4.5 million (none of the candidates got a majority). How many of those would have changed? I don't think the Dems are thinking this through.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,824
6,623
1,743
Yukon, OK
#77
Exactly right.. Elections have become less about voting for the best candidate and more about voting against the worst one, as all we get are bad choices anymore. In the last election, I encouraged everybody in a state that was relatively safe red or blue, to vote 3rd party (Green or Libertarian) and send a message to these dolts in DC. But with a national popular vote, my vote in 2016 would have changed form sending a message by voting for Johnson, to voting solely against Hillary, which would mean voting for Trump. The popular vote was decided by less than 3 million votes while Johnson got 4.5 million. How many of those would have changed? I don't think the Dems are thinking this through.
On the other side of the coin, I wonder how many people just wouldn't vote in blue states that aren't Cali or NY just off the assumption that "everyone else has it covered"? They thought individual votes were "suppressed" or "didn't count" with the EC process? Sheesh...
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,560
2,438
1,743
So Cal
#78
Exactly right.. Elections have become less about voting for the best candidate and more about voting against the worst one, as all we get are bad choices anymore. In the last election, I encouraged everybody in a state that was relatively safe red or blue, to vote 3rd party (Green or Libertarian) and send a message to these dolts in DC. But with a national popular vote, my vote in 2016 would have changed form sending a message by voting for Johnson, to voting solely against Hillary, which would mean voting for Trump. The popular vote was decided by less than 3 million votes while Johnson got 4.5 million (none of the candidates got a majority). How many of those would have changed? I don't think the Dems are thinking this through.
the other side of the coin is that if everyone would have voted correctly, instead of this 3rd party "we'll show them" nonsense, then Trump would have won the popular vote, and we would not be having this type of discussion in the first place.

I hadn't thought about it before, but you seem to be suggesting (or that's how I interpret it) that all our election problems are due to 3rd parties.... it's Johnson's fault that Trump didn't win the popular vote.... it's Perot's fault that we got Slick Willy as President.... I'm sure there are more examples.

I'm in a blue State and I voted against Hillary (Trump) for exactly this reason.... to impact the popular vote and try to head off nonsensical discussions about popular vote.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,342
23,769
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#79
the other side of the coin is that if everyone would have voted correctly, instead of this 3rd party "we'll show them" nonsense, then Trump would have won the popular vote, and we would not be having this type of discussion in the first place.

I hadn't thought about it before, but you seem to be suggesting (or that's how I interpret it) that all our election problems are due to 3rd parties.... it's Johnson's fault that Trump didn't win the popular vote.... it's Perot's fault that we got Slick Willy as President.... I'm sure there are more examples.

I'm in a blue State and I voted against Hillary (Trump) for exactly this reason.... to impact the popular vote and try to head off nonsensical discussions about popular vote.
No I am not suggesting that third parties are a problem with our elections, I'm saying a popular vote election would be a problem for 3rd party candidates.

I do think it likely that without Perot, Bush would've won a 2nd term, but a message was sent and it did straighten the Reps up for a while (contract with America for example).
 
Jul 22, 2011
1,462
2,222
743
#80
Let’s look at the other side of that coin.
The Democrats have dangled a big carrot in front of the faces of right-leaning libertarians and other opposers of the Left.
There are no red states offering up their Electoral votes to the popularity contest chopping block.
(Metaphors!)