Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » More General Categories » Religion and Politics » Colorado bill SB-42 passed states senate today
  1. Results 91 to 120 of 145
  2. Page 4 of 5
  3. First
  5. 2
  6. 3
  7. 4
  8. 5
  10. Last

Thread: Colorado bill SB-42 passed states senate today

post 1572530981 01-31-2019, 03:31 AM
-
#91
  1. Sleev-les
  2. Gata needs his gat!
  1. Sleev-les
  2. Gata needs his gat!
  3. Join Date: Jan 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 45
  6. Posts: 2,713
  7. Rep Power: 17442
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
we should be governing for the majority

the electoral college allows minority populations to have a disproportionately large voice

whats wrong with popular vote? is it because most of the country is liberal?
We are a republic where the minority and majority get equal representation and where the minority is protected from the majorities rule of law. Thats why!. You obviously don't understand the Constitution or what Constitutional Republic is.
ErgoGenix ErgoZzz log: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=167645251&p=1365912691#post1365912691

NEVERSUMMER Snowboard Brah
❄ ❄ ❄ ❄Official Misc Ski/Snowboard Crew❄ ❄ ❄ ❄
Sunkin' Guns Crew
post 1572532341 01-31-2019, 04:53 AM
-
#92
  1. ButWhoWasNoodz
  2. Registered User
  1. ButWhoWasNoodz
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2015
  4. Age: 46
  5. Posts: 1,779
  6. Rep Power: 16969
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
Thats actually wrong. Familiarize yourself with the compact clause. It states that"no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power."

Only congress and the senate can do away with the electoral college. This compact would undoubtedly be challenged, and the supreme court would never uphold it.
Only if we don't allow another D in the Presidency to appoint activists. Activist judges like Kagan and Sotomayor will uphold it because "the people" or something.
post 1572533081 01-31-2019, 05:19 AM
-
#93
  1. ButWhoWasNoodz
  2. Registered User
  1. ButWhoWasNoodz
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2015
  4. Age: 46
  5. Posts: 1,779
  6. Rep Power: 16969
Originally Posted By NitrogenWidget⏩
Let them.
half the country didn't even vote last election.

I know plenty of republicans in NY who would vote if they knew their vote actually counted.
it currently doesn't because of too many welfare recipients who vote dem.
Good idea in theory but LA and NY will just stuff ballot boxes to offset that. They already tried that in Broward County in Florida.
Much harder for them to do with the electoral college.
post 1572533261 01-31-2019, 05:25 AM
-
#94
  1. ButWhoWasNoodz
  2. Registered User
  1. ButWhoWasNoodz
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2015
  4. Age: 46
  5. Posts: 1,779
  6. Rep Power: 16969
Originally Posted By Maestro⏩
back then, a certain green herb wasn't legal recreationally and Californians weren't moving there by the hundreds of thousands year after year for the cheaper cost of living.
Pretty much sums up the dem strategy.
-drug the populace
-fill their heads with fake science ie global warming and 200 genders using corporate media moguls who in turn donate to the DNC
-usurp power via unconstitutional laws while the people are high and stupid
post 1572535101 01-31-2019, 06:18 AM
-
#95
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  3. Join Date: Aug 2009
  4. Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
  5. Posts: 66,936
  6. Rep Power: 214514
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
Sure they do. They also have the largest population of illegal aliens, who get counted in the census, and give california unfair representation in the senate. A nation wide popular vote is a different election tho.

Candidates will only cater to states with bigger populations while neglecting smaller states. The electoral college makes candidates have to fight for the people of every state.

Remember, this is a union of 50 states. We are a representative republic. That's why we have an electoral college.
Are you really suggesting that Presidents cater to all 50 states right now? Nothing would change they would cater to swing states, right now the same 5-6 states decide every presidential election.
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
post 1572535651 01-31-2019, 06:31 AM
-
#96
  1. Irezumi
  2. Graveyard of Empires
  1. Irezumi
  2. Graveyard of Empires
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Location: Yorba Linda, California, United States
  5. Posts: 13,130
  6. Rep Power: 80291
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
the majority...of voters...you idiot
Racist detected.

Lol at the biggest pseudointellectual here giving us any advice on anything. Fuking fake attorney poser ****.
LE6920CA Magpul
DDM4 V7
Glock 19 Gen 3
post 1572535801 01-31-2019, 06:34 AM
-
#97
  1. chaunce54
  2. Platinum User
  1. chaunce54
  2. Platinum User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2010
  4. Age: 50
  5. Posts: 32,523
  6. Rep Power: 202517
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
lol well then the minority demographic DEFINITELY shouldnt get to tell the majority demographic how to live, especially when it involved things like rights and taxes. thats even more fukked up.

and you can ban gay marriage all you want - as long as a majority supports it. last i checked plenty of straight people support gay marriage too. if only every straight person voted to ban gay marriage!
Well they voted on it in the most liberal state in the union, and the people voted against it. They were then overruled by activist judges.
^^Former 300+lb Crew^^

WWPB2D

Nothing worthwile is ever easy.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.
post 1572536281 01-31-2019, 06:44 AM
-
#98
  1. ThePoz
  2. ♕ High Warlord ♕
  1. ThePoz
  2. ♕ High Warlord ♕
  3. Join Date: Jan 2011
  4. Location: Syracuse, New York, United States
  5. Posts: 6,974
  6. Rep Power: 6276
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
uh the current system we have = GOP candidates dont campaign in california and new york. i srsly have no idea what youre talking about here. candidates CURRENTLY DONT HAVE TO CAMPAIGN IN EVERY STATE, because of the electoral college.

CA and NY are lost causes for them, so why waste their time?
Trump had 10+ rallies in NY.
Originally Posted By Jrd86⏩
Sure, and youre correct. But how many democrats do you see campaigning in ruby red states. So if anything, they cancel one another out. Then you have finite resources to spend on your campaign. Are you going to waste those finite resources in a state youre unlikely to win? Hell nah!
Worked in 2016
post 1572536961 01-31-2019, 06:58 AM
-
#99
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  3. Join Date: Aug 2009
  4. Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
  5. Posts: 66,936
  6. Rep Power: 214514
Originally Posted By ThePoz⏩
Trump had 10+ rallies in NY.
Trump probably thought he could actually compete there. He was a NY darling before running as R. He's an exception to the post you were responding to.
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
post 1572537221 01-31-2019, 07:02 AM
-
#100
  1. BearyManilowe
  1. BearyManilowe
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 15,220
  6. Rep Power: 130112
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
look man, as ive stated before im a strong supporter in states rights. if a state wants to do something, then whatever, as long as it doesnt infringe on the floor level rights required by the constitution.

but for federal law and federal election, SOME people are gonna have to make sacrifices and not get their way. I'm trying to get the number of those people who dont get their way as small as possible. thats why federal law should be majority/popular vote - so that MOST people have their voices heard - regardless of where those people are situated.

this strikes me as less fukked up than having a MINORITY of voices heard.
"I'm all for states rights, but 40 of the 50 states (a majority of the individual states that make up the "United States", btw) don't matter."

Jesus, have you ever won a court case? You're more of an idiot than the lawyer they fired in My Cousin Vinny.
***Mariah Carey is my 10/10 Crew***
***Misc Dads Crew***
post 1572539651 01-31-2019, 07:34 AM
-
#101
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  3. Join Date: Aug 2009
  4. Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
  5. Posts: 66,936
  6. Rep Power: 214514
POTUS voter participation is stupidly low if there is one benefit to a popular vote replacing the EV is you could argue that voter participation would have a huge jump.

Then again you could argue if people don't care enough to vote in an EV election do you really want those people voting?


The other thing that I have trouble digesting is the notion that EV protects the minority. Aren't state EV values already based on state population? So states with high populations already have a much much larger influence on who is president which would be the exact same scenario with a PV.

So if a state has 10 million voters and 6 million vote D and 4 million vote R then those 4 million votes count for nothing.
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
post 1572542021 01-31-2019, 08:06 AM
-
#102
  1. Cchrisrun
  2. insomnia sucks balls
  1. Cchrisrun
  2. insomnia sucks balls
  3. Join Date: Mar 2012
  4. Location: Boise, Idaho, United States
  5. Posts: 3,951
  6. Rep Power: 9206
Originally Posted By Maestro⏩
It still doesn't seem fair.

According to the op's bill, if, in 2020 trump wins Colorado, but Elizabeth Warren wins the popular vote in the US overall, then that means Warren also wins Colorado.

However, in order for trump to be awarded electoral votes for a state like colorado, the vast majority of its residents would have to vote for him. So no matter how you spin it trump would unjustly lose that state.

Granted colorado is pretty damn blue after the mj laws, but hypothetically if trump could win colorado it wouldn't be in his favor.

As long as swing states or larger states like texas don't try to enact this I think trump will be okay.
It is pretty much just telling the people of Colorado, that they can go F themselves.
Old Avi for motivation crew
Always pick 7 crew
767 crew
DL 440, Clean & Jerk 285, Front Squat 375, Back Squat 420, Bench 235
post 1572542141 01-31-2019, 08:08 AM
-
#103
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By ohiostate124⏩
So basically, an entire state’s votes don’t even really matter.
Correct
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1572542551 01-31-2019, 08:14 AM
-
#104
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,149
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98570
Originally Posted By JoshSP1985⏩
Are you really suggesting that Presidents cater to all 50 states right now? Nothing would change they would cater to swing states, right now the same 5-6 states decide every presidential election.
Right, the population centers will still be the same either way, the campaign targets will be the same. In practice there have only been 2(?) time the popular vote was different than the electoral, so the whole state representation idea doesn't accomplish much..

States electing the president is an archaic holdover from the alternative at the time of having congress elect the president. Using individual states as voter blocks electing a position that doesn't represent individual states isn't logical though.

Because our voting process is so dysfunctional the EC does serve to simplify the chit show of close popular votes and recounts. Getting rid of it isn't a battle worth fighting IMO. And I'm all for states asserting whatever authorities they have under the current system.
post 1572543251 01-31-2019, 08:23 AM
-
#105
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
Right, the population centers will still be the same either way, the campaign targets will be the same. In practice there have only been 2(?) time the popular vote was different than the electoral, so the whole state representation idea doesn't accomplish much..

States electing the president is an archaic holdover from the alternative at the time of having congress elect the president. Using individual states as voter blocks electing a position that doesn't represent individual states isn't logical though.

Because our voting process is so dysfunctional the EC does serve to simplify the chit show of close popular votes and recounts. Getting rid of it isn't a battle worth fighting IMO. And I'm all for states asserting whatever authorities they have under the current system.
The campaign targets would most definitely not be the same with a popular vote. California would be the center of the universe in a popular vote scenario.
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1572544141 01-31-2019, 08:32 AM
-
#106
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,149
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98570
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
The campaign targets would most definitely not be the same with a popular vote. California would be the center of the universe in a popular vote scenario.
Agreed, should have said similar. Meaning Wyoming isn't going to be a factor under either system.

You have to campaign where the people are.

The electoral votes are based on a popular vote anyway so this whole thing doesn't amount to much.
post 1572544811 01-31-2019, 08:42 AM
-
#107
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
Agreed, should have said similar. Meaning Wyoming isn't going to be a factor under either system.

You have to campaign where the people are.
It changes everything.

But in the end each state is represented almost perfectly by the EC. The number of people per house seat is very close. In fact many of the states that people complain about like Wyoming (I noticed they don't complain about Maine, New Hampshire, etc) have more people per house seat than California does. The place where it shifts statistically is the Senate. Each state gets 2 Senators regardless of size. If you take away the 2 Senate seats as part of the EC calculation, you have a near perfect system.

But honestly, is Wyoming really deciding the presidency with its 3 measly EC votes?
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1572544941 01-31-2019, 08:44 AM
-
#108
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  3. Join Date: Aug 2009
  4. Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
  5. Posts: 66,936
  6. Rep Power: 214514
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
The campaign targets would most definitely not be the same with a popular vote. California would be the center of the universe in a popular vote scenario.
Well you could argue that there are millions upon millions of republican voters in Cali that just get ignored is that right?

Also, one could argue that in a PV election the Potus would campaign on national issues more so than state issues that get brought up because the leader of the nation should be working for the nation and leaving localized state issues to the states. Example Trump being in WV making a bunch of comments about coal workers.
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
post 1572545361 01-31-2019, 08:49 AM
-
#109
  1. NitrogenWidget
  1. NitrogenWidget
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 43,261
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 349299
Originally Posted By ButWhoWasNoodz⏩
Good idea in theory but LA and NY will just stuff ballot boxes to offset that. They already tried that in Broward County in Florida.
Much harder for them to do with the electoral college.
and coincidentally this is why dems are against a national voter id card.
post 1572545371 01-31-2019, 08:49 AM
-
#110
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By JoshSP1985⏩
Well you could argue that there are millions upon millions of republican voters in Cali that just get ignored is that right?

Also, one could argue that in a PV election the Potus would campaign on national issues more so than state issues that get brought up because the leader of the nation should be working for the nation and leaving localized state issues to the states. Example Trump being in WV making a bunch of comments about coal workers.
No, they wouldn't campaign on national issues and forgo the state stuff. California would be the key to the universe, so you'd have to campaign on California issues to win.
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1572545561 01-31-2019, 08:52 AM
-
#111
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  3. Join Date: Aug 2009
  4. Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
  5. Posts: 66,936
  6. Rep Power: 214514
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
No, they wouldn't campaign on national issues and forgo the state stuff. California would be the key to the universe, so you'd have to campaign on California issues to win.
You have the same types of issues under EV and with PV the voter disenfranchisement would be less. Right now you have almost half the population where their vote means nothing due to their "side" losing a state
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
post 1572545721 01-31-2019, 08:54 AM
-
#112
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,149
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98570
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
It changes everything.
Being that the EC serves to consolidate the popular vote it doesn't generally change the outcome though. I get it though and don't disagree.
post 1572545931 01-31-2019, 08:57 AM
-
#113
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,149
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98570
Originally Posted By JoshSP1985⏩
Well you could argue that there are millions upon millions of republican voters in Cali that just get ignored is that right?

Also, one could argue that in a PV election the Potus would campaign on national issues more so than state issues that get brought up because the leader of the nation should be working for the nation and leaving localized state issues to the states. Example Trump being in WV making a bunch of comments about coal workers.
That is more my thinking.

I don't believe there is a strong logic/connection of separating voters by state when electing the leader of the nation.
post 1572545971 01-31-2019, 08:58 AM
-
#114
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  3. Join Date: Aug 2009
  4. Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
  5. Posts: 66,936
  6. Rep Power: 214514
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
Being that the EC serves to consolidate the popular vote it doesn't generally change the outcome though. I get it though and don't disagree.
IMO a piece of the puzzle that people ignore a lot in the EC vs PV debate is voter participation. Right now in most states that are locks one way or another you could argue a lot of people have no incentive to vote because they know the state always goes red/blue. It would be an interesting study to try to determine how much of a changer there would be in participation in a PV election.
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
post 1572546041 01-31-2019, 08:59 AM
-
#115
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2015
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 37
  6. Posts: 21,395
  7. Rep Power: 112562
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
No, they wouldn't campaign on national issues and forgo the state stuff. California would be the key to the universe, so you'd have to campaign on California issues to win.
And even more specifically the campaigns would end up focusing on the high population cities because that would be the most efficient use of their time/funds. Would have to tailor their campaigns/politics to those cities, flyover states would be almost completely ignored.
**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
post 1572550511 01-31-2019, 09:53 AM
-
#116
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  3. Join Date: Aug 2009
  4. Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
  5. Posts: 66,936
  6. Rep Power: 214514
Originally Posted By iifymbro⏩
And even more specifically the campaigns would end up focusing on the high population cities because that would be the most efficient use of their time/funds. Would have to tailor their campaigns/politics to those cities, flyover states would be almost completely ignored.
So is that any better than what happens currently?

Right now a small (relative) group of people get campaign focus because of their state political party demographics versus another subset of the population getting the focus under PV based on population density rather than how likely a state is to swing.

So in both setups some groups are focused while others are ignored but under PV every vote will count where as EV about half the votes don't count at all.
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
post 1572554331 01-31-2019, 10:36 AM
-
#117
  1. BearyManilowe
  1. BearyManilowe
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 15,220
  6. Rep Power: 130112
Originally Posted By JoshSP1985⏩
So is that any better than what happens currently?

Right now a small (relative) group of people get campaign focus because of their state political party demographics versus another subset of the population getting the focus under PV based on population density rather than how likely a state is to swing.

So in both setups some groups are focused while others are ignored but under PV every vote will count where as EV about half the votes don't count at all.
The small group of people receiving focus under the EC by workforce diversity is a much larger portion of the infrastructure of the US as a whole than the populous hubs that would receive attention under a PV IMO.

Colorado passes this ordinance as if politicians would ever have reason to come to Colorado ever again. If you look at the Electoral Map from 2016, you can see that Trump won a massive majority of STATES. And yet somehow still lost the PV of the country. In what way does the PV represent the nation (since we've established ITT that this a national level) if Trump won such a large % of the geographical vote that make up the nation?

Neither system is perfect, but imo the electoral system is much better than a PV system given the massive diversity of needs at a national level across even half the US.
***Mariah Carey is my 10/10 Crew***
***Misc Dads Crew***
post 1572554561 01-31-2019, 10:39 AM
-
#118
  1. QuitYourCrying
  2. Registered User
  1. QuitYourCrying
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Posts: 3,531
  5. Rep Power: 10765
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
yes, i think the presidential election should be based on the popular vote. and more and more states are starting to agree.
The founders of the country disagreed with you and wrote at length about how a national popular vote would be a bad thing.

These laws will be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
post 1572555001 01-31-2019, 10:46 AM
-
#119
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  1. JoshSP1985
  2. Anti-Circumcision
  3. Join Date: Aug 2009
  4. Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
  5. Posts: 66,936
  6. Rep Power: 214514
Originally Posted By BearyManilowe⏩
The small group of people receiving focus under the EC by workforce diversity is a much larger portion of the infrastructure of the US as a whole than the populous hubs that would receive attention under a PV IMO.

Colorado passes this ordinance as if politicians would ever have reason to come to Colorado ever again. If you look at the Electoral Map from 2016, you can see that Trump won a massive majority of STATES. And yet somehow still lost the PV of the country. In what way does the PV represent the nation (since we've established ITT that this a national level) if Trump won such a large % of the geographical vote that make up the nation?

Neither system is perfect, but imo the electoral system is much better than a PV system given the massive diversity of needs at a national level across even half the US.
I don't think you can use PV numbers under EC to make arguments considering the participation under PV should spike considerably.

It would come down to how many more R or D voters would be added under PV when you remove the locked state disenfranchisement. For example how many more R voters would show up in Cali? Or how many more D voters would show up in Indiana etc

I'm sure the math could be done to give an idea if you compared registrations vs vote numbers by party and compared that by state. So lets say among republican registrations in Cali there is a 30% turnout, but D voters in Cali there is a 65% turn out, you could argue that if the vote was PV the R numbers would jump to around 65% turn out, that could however go both ways because disenfranchisement happens on both ends, R not voting in Cali because it's a Blue lock and some D voters also not voting in Cali for the same reason.

I'll let it up to a math wiz to do the calc but it would be interesting to see a study that tries to show what the impact on participation would be under PV and if it would benefit R or D more.
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
post 1572555251 01-31-2019, 10:50 AM
-
#120
  1. BearyManilowe
  1. BearyManilowe
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 15,220
  6. Rep Power: 130112
Originally Posted By JoshSP1985⏩
I don't think you can use PV numbers under EC to make arguments considering the participation under PV should spike considerably.

It would come down to how many more R or D voters would be added under PV when you remove the locked state disenfranchisement. For example how many more R voters would show up in Cali? Or how many more D voters would show up in Indiana etc
Am I supposed to use fabricated imaginary numbers to view PV voting numbers? Sure more Republicans COULD come out to Vote in CA. Alternately, more Dems that dont vote because its already a lock could come vote. Texas could go blue. All of this could happen, but that's a guess at best. We have data currently that show typical voter output (even in local elections) and that is where our information should he coming from. Not from a "what if" based on feelings.
***Mariah Carey is my 10/10 Crew***
***Misc Dads Crew***
Quick Navigation Top Misc
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts