Democrats are proposing making Election Day a holiday. If Election Day was a holiday, which party would this help?
Nobody. They need to get these lazy 47% who didn't vote the last time to vote.
It would help all citizens.
It would help Republicans. The Dems would make it another unproductive day...maybe lay around and get high and would end up not voting.
Democrats because when more citizens vote democrats do better.
My tailgate party. 😃😃
It doesn't matter which party it would help. Allowing more people to have the option to vote is good.
I recall 40 years it was. Or maybe it was a half-day? Schools were closed. My mom was off work. (Dad was a teacher; he had off because the schools were used as polling places, hence school closure for the kids)
I don’t see how it would help either of them. Fewer people voting, because they got the day off, made a four day weekend of it and are out of town, seems unlikely to benefit either one more than the other.
They want sunrise to be a legal holiday.
Why would either party care if voter turnout was increasing? The only logical reason is that the party that is against higher voter turnouts is afraid they would lose.
It would help all Americans. We should encourage people to vote, not suppress it, regardless of party.
More citizens voting helps Democrats, which is why Republicans keep trying to suppress the vote.
Republicans suppress votes of illegal and improperly "registered" voters.
I’m familiar with the lies you use to justify suppression.
Guy ... the irony is that you don’t seem to know the lies you are promoting.
It would help Americans. Election Day should be a holiday.
I don’t think that will happen, just open it up so people can vote early as many states do now and make it easier so they don’t have to wait in long lines. Still there’re a lot of people that don’t give a crap and don’t vote, a holiday wouldn’t make a difference.
You should be alarmed at this.
It’s being implemented in the background. This passed the CO senate this week.
Man you guys are really all over the place when it comes to state rights.
Gee, all blue states.
Probably because republicans haven't been able to win the popular vote in a long time.
Does unconstitutional count? Let’s repeal the 14th amendment and see how the Dems freak out!
In what way is this unconstitutional?
The electoral college was built into our constitution by our founders to avoid mob rule. This is intentionally bypassing the constitution
This still uses the electoral college. No where in the constitution does it say states can't give their votes to the the winner of the popular vote.
It bypasses the spirit of the constitution, which is the same thing
I would argue deciding how states get to use their electoral votes is bypassing the spirit of the constitution.
Republicans don’t have the same rampant voter fraud that the Dems do.
Stop fear mongering.
How is stating a fact fear-mongering? Maybe it should scare you.
Because it's not real?
Republicans have worse voter fraud, and it’s called Russia!
Russia, Russia, Russia!! 😂 magical! 🧚🏻♀️✨✨💫
Just prove Trump did what you claim. It’s simple. You have Mueller. If he did anything it would be front page news daily.
In your own words, zimmy, tell us how Russia committed voter fraud for Trump....🍿
Oh yeah I forgot how investigators usually release all their information about a suspect before the investigation is ready to take action. That being said Trump does tend to keep criminals around him for example:
George Papadopoulos, Trump's former foreign policy advisor.
Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chair.
Rick Gates, Trump's former campaign aid.
Micheal Flynn, Trump's former national security advisor.
Micheal Cohen, Trump's former lawyer.
Roger Stone, Trump's former advisor
I'm sure Trump is completely on the up and up though.
Funny that none of them have linked Trump to a crime. How many are indicted on process crimes? Maybe you should study up on the charges before listing those.
Hey I'm not saying he's for sure committed crimes. All I'm saying if a bunch of my associates were convicted criminals people wouldn't exactly expect me to be completely innocent.
Long ago I came up with a solution for the electoral college "problem", Implementing it will never happen because it is so fair that it would end Democratic Party because it would render huge cities relatively unimportant. Hugely populated cities like NYC sway large electoral vote state like NY. My solution is as follows:
Each state has electoral college voters based on their number of congressmen...each state has 2 senators and each state is apportioned 1 member of the house of representatives based on the total population of the state (This is why the census is so important and also why ONLY citizens and LEGAL aliens should be counted in the census. But that's a different debate) The member of the HOR are elected in congressional district while member of the Sen are elected in stateside elections. This is why in many states you might have several members of the house of one party and several of the other party while USUALLY the senators are of the same party.
What of say that a state has 12 electoral college votes. That would mean they have 10 congressional districts representing 10 members of the HOR and 2 senators.
If candidate A wins 7 congressional districts and candidate B wins the other 3 congressional districts candidate a would receive 7 electoral votes and candidate B would win the other 3. But what about the other 2 rectoral college votes? My proposal would be that those 2 electoral college votes would go to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state. It is entirely possible to win more congressional districts but lose the popular vote.
The reason why I believe that it would end the Democratic Party is because Democratic Party tends to win large urban areas but not the rest of the country. If you look at States where Hillary Clinton won the elections I think you will find that if you were to shade that state by congressional district alone you would find that Trump beat Hillary in most of the when mass of the country. And since in all but 2 states the electoral votes are all or nothing large EC states like NY are delivered to the Democrats based mostly on winning in big cities.
Basically what I would like to see would be an end to the all or nothing system of allocating EC votes and the system I explained would be the fairest I can think of while still keeping the Electoral College.
Of course I certainly would not be opposed to 1 person 1 vote and going strictly with a popular vote. That would be the fairest way of all and would encourage more people to vote.
Of course one thing would be absolutely crucial and that would be to make sure that anybody and everybody who votes is legally allowed to do so. That means some sort of voter ID would be required. It is absolutely stupid that you are not required to show proof that you are who you say you are when you go who the polls. I dont know ANYONE over the age of 21 who does not have some sort of state ID. And I would wager there are very few over the age of 18 without ID. I would have absolutely no problem with a policy of anyone over the age of 18 who does not have a valid driver's license being able to get a free state ID And most of the people I know without a driver's license have exactly that . If you were too lazy to make the time to go get said IDI don't want you voting anyway and you are probably 2 lazy to do so anyway. Make it so you can get that ID when you turn 17 and that would give people a whole year to get one before they are eligible to vote.
How are you creating these districts? Is it based on population? If it is urban areas will still have a lot of pull. If it's not based on population than people who vote in densely populated areas will have less meaningful votes than those living in rural areas.
There actually a decent amount of American citizens without ID. Currently you have to pay for ID at least in my state. If someone is broke I don't think that should be a reason to stop them from voting. If truly free ones were issued I'd have no problem with that.
Mitch, there hasn’t even been a trial yet. Who’s been convicted?
Papadopoulos, Manafort, Gates, Flynn and Cohen have all either plead guilty or been convicted by a trial. So most of them have been found to be guilty actually.
Mitch the districts are already laid out. Of course there has been gerrymandering (on both sides) but if you leave it as it stands for example CA has 55 electoral votes, 53 members of the HOR & 2 Senators....therefore has 53 congressional districts.
I also would have no problem with a bipartisan committee redrawing all congressional districts to make them more fair… but that would open up a whole new can of worms. Districs are drawn up based on population, which is why CA has several very small districts in and around SF and some large districts in more rural farmland area.
And yes I do believe that a voter ID should be issued for free to anyone who wants one. And replacements should be issued for free as well in case of loss… however there should be some control over that. If somebody comes in every 2 months saying they lost their state issued ID then perhaps this should be a charge for replacements after a certain number.
And of course the state issued ID should have a unique number for each person… to prevent multiple voting in different areas.
Manafort/Gates convicted on charges stemming from FARA violations back around 2011 when working for the Podesta Grouo and Clinton/Obama. Nothing to do with Trump whatsoever.
Flynn- plead guilty to lying though even the FBI interviewers said he didn’t lie. Hasn’t even been sentenced. Keeps getting pushed by Mueller. Why? Because he’s testified against Clinton/Obama. Sentencing him allows him to speak freely about the case. Still, no charges related to Trump-Russia interference in election.
Papadapolous - charged and convicted for lying about meeting with a CIA asset Downer to get damning emails. Never got them anyway. Convicted of lying about it. Got 14 days. Still no Trump-Russia connection.
Cohen- charged for lying. Still no Trump-Russia connection.
All unrelated to Trump was my point.
I never said they were. All I'm saying is it wouldn't be that surprising if someone who keeps the company of criminals commits crimes themselves. I'm not saying Donald Trump for sure committed crimes, but I mean it wouldn't be surprising if he did.
But, but, but those emails
Probably Democrats, but I couldn’t say for certain.
I think it would help the Republicans more… after all they are the ones with jobs!
People are supposed to be more conservative when they’re older, right? Retirees don’t need holidays.
They need rides. 😁
I didn’t think a lot of democrats worked in the first place! 😂