Posted on Oct 5, 2018
2nd Amendment Supporters Should Worry About National Popular Vote Movement
664
13
4
6
6
0
I learned something new in this piece.
2nd Amendment Supporters Should Worry About National Popular Vote Movement
Posted from ammoland.com
Voting
Congress
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
I did a bit of research on the Electoral college during my History II class and actually gave a presentation on past presidential elections where the winner was not the popular vote.
While I can agree that it is a good thing in this case that Hillary didn't get into office for the sake of the 2nd Amendment, I also feel that the article started with an opinion and pushed that opinion on you without offering any viewpoint from the other side of the table. Like for example, the disproportionate amount of Electoral votes that California gets in comparison to other states due the population. Effectively by not using a popular vote you are saying half the people's opinions in a state get completely nullified. There-fore the voice of up to 49.99 repeating percentage of each state's votes are thrown out with the trash at the end of it and all votes are in fact cast directly in favor of the popular vote for that state. That would imply that those that voted for the opposing candidate instead voted for the one they did not want in office.
In 2016 California had 55 electoral votes which accounts for 10.2% of the total 358 electoral votes, meaning that up to 5.1% of the nation's opinions were silenced. While I understand that even with a national popular vote the end result would still be the most popular candidate and up to the same 49.99% of the nation's votes would ultimately fail, it would at least be considered in the big picture and not minimized to sections.
Are we better or worse for this scenario? I cannot say, and neither can anyone else without mirror image realities and alternate presidents allowed to play out it will just remain unknown. All I'm saying is try to see things from both sides of the fence, use some level of critical thinking to take into consideration the pros and cons of both systems, and make an educated decision to support one or the other before committing to a choice. These are the actions of leaders.
While I can agree that it is a good thing in this case that Hillary didn't get into office for the sake of the 2nd Amendment, I also feel that the article started with an opinion and pushed that opinion on you without offering any viewpoint from the other side of the table. Like for example, the disproportionate amount of Electoral votes that California gets in comparison to other states due the population. Effectively by not using a popular vote you are saying half the people's opinions in a state get completely nullified. There-fore the voice of up to 49.99 repeating percentage of each state's votes are thrown out with the trash at the end of it and all votes are in fact cast directly in favor of the popular vote for that state. That would imply that those that voted for the opposing candidate instead voted for the one they did not want in office.
In 2016 California had 55 electoral votes which accounts for 10.2% of the total 358 electoral votes, meaning that up to 5.1% of the nation's opinions were silenced. While I understand that even with a national popular vote the end result would still be the most popular candidate and up to the same 49.99% of the nation's votes would ultimately fail, it would at least be considered in the big picture and not minimized to sections.
Are we better or worse for this scenario? I cannot say, and neither can anyone else without mirror image realities and alternate presidents allowed to play out it will just remain unknown. All I'm saying is try to see things from both sides of the fence, use some level of critical thinking to take into consideration the pros and cons of both systems, and make an educated decision to support one or the other before committing to a choice. These are the actions of leaders.
(3)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
Interesting but your response ignores the following statement from the article and video. The other problem with your statement implies that our system of government is a democracy, it is not it is a representative republic. Yes it does rely upon values that are described as democratic, BUT our system IS NOT a democracy, and it is fairly well explained in this video.
"The fact is, the presidential election is never about who wins the popular vote. It’s winning a majority of the Electoral College that matters. Back when the Constitution was drafted in 1787, the Electoral College was one of two institutions intended to make sure that smaller states were not drowned out by bigger ones (the other was the United States Senate, which gave equal representation to all states)."
"The fact is, the presidential election is never about who wins the popular vote. It’s winning a majority of the Electoral College that matters. Back when the Constitution was drafted in 1787, the Electoral College was one of two institutions intended to make sure that smaller states were not drowned out by bigger ones (the other was the United States Senate, which gave equal representation to all states)."
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
That does wake you up a bit....Having Cali tell me what to do in NH so to speak....Kind of puts a bee in my bonnet too as we all know how many votes get stuffed in....Just look at Hillary! Good read SGT (Join to see)
(3)
(0)
0
0
0
As we all know, it would take a Constitutional amendment to change or eliminate the Electoral college and/or 2nd Amendment. I just do not see that happening, given the divisions we now have.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google