Oregon state senator won't block push for National Popular Vote

@EllaDisenchanted: Why should voting power be decided on where you live?

@KaliKali: Because if you leave it to popular vote then you will find that the majority rules. Sounds great in theory but that means entire states will be overridden in their wants and needs by voters in an entirely different state.

Example: Let's say there's a vote on such and such tax and it's left to popular vote. Montana,colorado,idaho and the Dakotas have less of a population of San Fransisco and San Berdino combined. You will have the equivalent of two cali towns deciding policy for people 1000 miles away, without the same resources, money and culture.

You would be setting up a system where it's popularity and spin doctoring over informed voting. That's not truly giving people what they want. It's giving a partyline what they want.

@EllaDisenchanted:

[quote]Because if you leave it to popular vote then you will find that the majority rules. [/quote]

I know, with a popular vote someone will never be able to get elected just because the majority of people don't want them to be.

[quote]Sounds great in theory but that means entire states will be overridden in their wants and needs by voters in an entirely different state.[/quote]

That happens with the electoral college. Maybe not with one specific state, but with regions it certainly does.

[quote]Let's say there's a vote on such and such tax and it's left to popular vote.[/quote]

There aren't national votes to implement taxes. o_O

[quote]Montana,colorado,idaho and the Dakotas have less of a population of San Fransisco and San Berdino combined. You will have the equivalent of two cali towns deciding policy for people 1000 miles away, without the same resources, money and culture.[/quote]

So you think the solution is to instead let the smaller number of people in Montana, Colorado, Idaho and the Dakotas decide policy for people 1000 miles away in California?

[quote]You would be setting up a system where it's popularity and spin doctoring over informed voting.[/quote]

The electoral college does absolutely nothing to make voters more informed nor does it give more voting power to those who are informed. Voting power is instead based on where you live.

[quote]That's not truly giving people what they want. It's giving a partyline what they want.[/quote]

Right, the winner of an election being the person with the most votes isn't giving the voters what they wanted. The mental gymnastics you people play is incredible.

@KaliKali: I was using the tax example as just that: an example. No system is going to be perfect, just some are better than others.

@LvChris: Not to elect a president outright, no. but to be the deciding factor when the numbers are tallied, yes. At least enough of an influence to skew numbers. Then you add in party politics, spin doctors and whatever propaganda the chuckleheads want to throw in the mix and it's even bigger chaos than what politics already is by it's own nature.

@LvChris: My point is that no system is perfect, we just have to go by one that makes more sense over others. Popular vote doesn't make sense over electoral because it's easier to skew numbers and harder to bring rigging to light.

@LvChris: Dang you're angry tonight.

You're looking at the larger overall numbers that people generally don't look up but take the words of those whom regurgitate them to the public. In the end, numbers never truly line up because that's how large scale numbering works of its own nature. So actual fraud is hard to detect. I'm saying there's no reason to change things around to muddy the waters even more.

And who's talking of voting fraud? Or nefarious side-country conspiracy theories.

I'm saying simply: No system is perfect. ANYTHING involving numbers, because of how number systems work, can get dicey. Messing with something that isn't broke (altogether. I should have put that in there in the first place) makes it that much harder to run things smoothly.

@EllaDisenchanted: It is broken...

@KaliKali: Anything involving human interference is broken in some way. That's what I keep pointing out. But having a blown out tire is still somewhat better than a busted engine.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States
Two-thirds (273 of 399) of the general-election campaign events in the 2016 presidential race were in just 6 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan).

Oregon got 0. NONE. The Democrats take us for granted and the Republicans write us off.

@hiddeninahollowsound: Yep yep. Even when I was still in PA my people weren't represented but we payed as much as anyone, sometimes more, in taxes. But that's the way things are and going to popular vote would have almost the same results, but more headaches.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0rOKo9BWEU]

@LvChris: You just want me to keep repeating myself so you can stroke your ego at this point.

ANY system is going to be flawed. Electoral is the only one that is feasible considering how politics and us in the general rabble operate. The average person has more of a voice as is. It's a horrid system but politics are horrid.

[quote]The average person has more of a voice as is[/quote]

No, some people have more voice than others. In a popular vote everyone has exactly the same voting power. You keep saying that the electoral college system is the best but you aren't giving any reasons why.

@LvChris: Being rude because someone doesn't agree with you on something isn't friendly advice. It's not being able to handle other people's opinions. Could I be wrong? Certainly. Do I need to be snarky to you because we don't agree? No. But hey, if you're fueled by anger that's your issue. If you have to speak down to people to make yourself feel better then that's between you and yourself.

@LvChris: Keep hating. When you're done we're here for you.

@LvChris: Cool story,bro.