Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I think both are a mixed bag. I suspect it depends on the stimulus. I mean, look at the poor fishing attempts posted around our back and forth. I think that, by default, the 30 year olds have more experience. No real way around that. But again, using age to determine maturity is probably not the best approach. I'd rather there be a test to make said determination.
In a vacuum, I could definitely get behind a test to determine voting eligibility. But in practice this sort of test has a checkered history in the US, and I don't know that I trust authorities to write an unbiased test without putting their thumb on the scale. I'd rather just stick with an arbitrary age threshold.
Republicans recently don't have a strong track record in winning the popular vote so maybe rules of game vs issues isn't a great stand to take.
If they have a job they pay all sorts of taxes. If they ever buy anything they pay sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. Not that means they should get to vote, just pointing out they do pay some taxes.
To me voting is very different from any of these things. I think it's a huge problem that the interests of about 25% of the country are discounted by politicians because they are too young to vote. The disproportionate power that old people have in this country has a significant impact on our public policy, and not in a good way in my opinion. There's no such concern with the fact that young people can't smoke or drink.
Oh c'mon...you're making it sound like they'd want to get rid of the Electoral College or something along those lines.
It’s almost like they don’t care about legal citizens over 18 outside of New York and California.
Pretty much.
The whole reason for the Electoral College was to prevent populous cities from dictating policy of the entire country.
I was 17 when I joined the USMC...and looking back...I did not know a whole lot about things other than booze and the red-light districts of certain ports.
States have moved or tried to move back and forth between winner-takes-all and proportional electoral college votes many times. When Obama was President, Republicans tried changing Nebraska from proportional to winner takes all and Republicans in Pennsylvania tried the opposite. 48 States currently have a winner takes all electoral college system.Pretty much.
A handful of (Democratically controlled) states have already either passed or have introduced legislation stating that all of their electoral votes must be cast for whoever won the popular vote. This would make it feasible that 6-7 states would determine the outcome of a presidential election.
It's not as if 50.001 % of the country distributed in cities on the coasts can dictate their will to 49.999% of the country
Nothing to see here.
Yup. But at what cost?
Seriously?
You said:
You mean the electoral votes of a State based on who won the whole country? Can I see a link, that is new to me.
The articles say that these states would cast their electoral votes to whomever won the National popular vote
I see that now. When you posted popular vote I assume you meant in the State, not National. Here is an article about it and there is a big caveat:
So it only goes into effect if the majority of the Electoral Vote representing States all agree.
I don't like it but I also concede that it is totally up to the State's how they decide to hand out the Electoral College votes. Not all States do it the same way now. Which I think also indicates some of the major flaws in the electoral college system.
So...it will only go into effect if there's a chance it would change the undesirable results of an election?
No, it only goes into effect if the states can be assured that the winner of the popular vote would then win the electoral college. Having it go into effect before that would be contrary to the point of the whole exercise.*
Actually it was indirectly a part of the compromise on slavery. As it was affected by congressional representation which benefitted the souths counting of people who couldn't vote for that number.
That was part of it. Also it was a buffer against democracy. There was debate over whether Congress or the citizens should vote for President. This was the compromise. The people get to vote but if they make a poor choice, the EC could override it. The idea was not too dissimilar to how State Legislative branches used to vote for Senators. Today, an Amendment was created a direct vote for Senator and the EC votes are mostly a formality.
As long as it's acknowledged as an arbitrary line and nothing more, I'm ok with one's position like that. However, there seem to be some around here who think there's some sort of logic behind this age thing and then go on to offer "examples" that don't support that. Those people, well...they're those people I guess. I prefer the test approach myself even though it would probably rule out a good number of the trolls in this thread and on this board. I mean, you see some of the drivel in this very thread.
Again, this seems to be another arbitrary line. The EC prevents the above, but it also prevents this at a local level. Why draw the line at a state level? Why not have proportional voting in the EC? From the first day I read about this in 9th grade civics, I always thought that was a pretty stupid thing to do. The logical change here is to say if one wins a state 60/40, that's how the EC votes are split up. That puts all states in focus. The current EC and complete removal of EC options don't do that, but I never hear my "conservative" friends offer that as a solution. Weird.
I agree. The only remotely similar arguments would the issue of taxation without representation and the idea that Congress could declare a war and enact a draft and a 16/17 year old could turn 18 and be drafted without ever having had a vote. The Constitution isn’t getting amended for that without massive disruption from the youth.
More political BS to try and refuse to do the will of the people
Really it’s just Cali. Florida has more people than New York. Texas + Ohio can cancel out California. Politicians would just have to adopt policies that appeal to more people in the country instead of strategies that play to certain States. It would also encourage candidates to pay attention to every State. Now half the States get written off by each Party because they aren’t winnable. I’m not saying it’s better or worse but I don’t think would mean Cali and New York ultimately have final say and make everyone else irrelevant.
but if you take the fear factor away, what's left?Ilov80s said:
I’m in favor of each person in the country getting an equal vote.JohnnyU said:
If a single state decided it wanted to allocate its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner that would not be a problem. But that’s not what’s happening. A group of states are getting together and saying they will only allocate their electors that way if all the other states do too. That’s an interstate compact. Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution says interstate compacts can only be entered into with the consent of Congress. So if they don’t get that, it seems like a clear case that it violates the Constitution.
Posts like this make it hard for anyone else to take you seriously. You are not doing yourself any favors.
Really?
You were talking about kids being in school as if no conservatives put their kids in school because it's such a liberal thing. You make it sound like education is a liberal thing and not a conservative thing.
