Started By
Message
re: This is why people voted against the far left
Posted on 12/16/16 at 8:57 pm to tiger chaser
Posted on 12/16/16 at 8:57 pm to tiger chaser
quote:So you make those people's votes count less just because they live near more people?
states such as California an New York having more people would have a greater influence on who would win the election.
1
Posted on 12/16/16 at 9:02 pm to tiger chaser
quote:
By using popular votes... states such as California an New York having more people would have a greater influence on who would win the election. The majority of people in the other states do not think like these people at all. Electoral vote was established for this reason. So no LIBERALISM.
Do you know the history of the EC? It has nothing to do with the people. The shift to a popular vote was a shift in the 1800s. Most electors were initially chosen by state legislatures--- not popular vote. It was a check on the power of larger states, but not in terms of the people, but from the governments of the smaller states. The United States was also viewed as plural during this time. People would write "The United States are growing." versus "United States is growing." which is how it would read today. If you asked someone in 1789, they would be more likely to say "I am a Virginian" instead of I" am an American."
And do you think the majority of people hate Texas as well?
And seriously would you be praising the EC if the election went the other way?
A bigger issue should be the ever increasing power of the federal government, but that ship has sailed.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 9:24 pm to higgs_boson
quote:
My bigger issue is the lack of honesty in really reforming our elections. The EC was envisioned at a time when we were an Atlantic Coastal Country and states were envisioned as picking the President as a way to ensure a check on federal oversight.
Those days are gone. Today states do not select, the voting population does. I think we should ultimately go to a popular vote. The problem is, the ones advocating it now would not be if the election had been different.
Changing this constitutionally would be a bear. But if enough states to get to 270 signed the compact that they would honor the national popular vote, it would work...
And I think it would not have changed the election this year, tbh. If anything, the current system yields itself to avoiding most of the larger states because without getting a majority in those states in popular vote, it is a waste of time.
Had the popular vote been the way we chose our President, I believe you would have seen much greater turnout among people who tend to not vote in the big states because they know the vote will not reach a majority in that state (like CA).
This also hurts the states, in my view. I think CA now has a Dem supermajority. In large part I think that is due to Republican vote being suppressed by the reality of the EC. The same could probably be said for states like Texas.
Naw. The same concept applies. It was to ensure that smaller states got slightly more representation. 9 voters in LA have the same, and roughly homogeneous view of the world, and they outnumber the one rust belt voter, one midwest voter, etc that might have differing views. It was a way to stop urban dominance in the federal system, and that concept is very much applicable today. California was roughly 4 million Hilldog over Trump. You're basically in the position of homogenizing Californians, then slobbing their knobs if you eliminate the electoral college. And I say this as a Texan. My vote for President will always be worth less than the majority of other citizens, and I'm okay with that.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 9:25 pm to higgs_boson
quote:
Do you know the history of the EC? It has nothing to do with the people. The shift to a popular vote was a shift in the 1800s. Most electors were initially chosen by state legislatures--- not popular vote. It was a check on the power of larger states, but not in terms of the people, but from the governments of the smaller states. The United States was also viewed as plural during this time. People would write "The United States are growing." versus "United States is growing." which is how it would read today. If you asked someone in 1789, they would be more likely to say "I am a Virginian" instead of I" am an American."
And do you think the majority of people hate Texas as well?
And seriously would you be praising the EC if the election went the other way?
A bigger issue should be the ever increasing power of the federal government, but that ship has sailed.
If they do, it's because they are jealous.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 9:48 pm to Carolina Tide
quote:
Yes how dare a state's major population center play a major role in determining who our next president is.
According to the 2010 US Census 80.7% of Americans now live in a major urban area.. So yeah if you get rid of all of those blue dots on your map then Trump would've won the popular vote-mainly because the majority of the population wouldn't have counted.
let me try to use some common sense here...
those major population area's are looking out for their urban environment interests. fyi most of America isn't an urban environment
also the people in urban environments do not make up the backbone of America. hard working blue collar Americans in fly over states are the heart and backbone of America.
not to mention if the popular vote was what counted it would have drastically changed how both candidates campaigned. Trump and Hillary would have been campaigning hardcore in only those big population centers while leaving flyover states out of the equation.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 9:56 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:What do you consider an urban environment? Because at least 70% of Americans live in an urbanized area (>50,000). An extra 10% lives in an urban cluster (between 2,500 and 50,000).
fyi most of America isn't an urban environment
If you are looking at square miles, well of course. We have a lot of open spaces in the middle of the country where no one lives.
This post was edited on 12/16/16 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 12/16/16 at 10:06 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
you are looking at square miles, well of course. We have a lot of open spaces in the middle of the country where no one lives.
Farmers live there. Why do you hate farmers and black people so much?
Posted on 12/16/16 at 10:08 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:I don't hate them. I just don't think their vote should count more than anyone else's.
Farmers live there. Why do you hate farmers and black people so much?
Posted on 12/16/16 at 10:14 pm to pvilleguru
So you're going to disenfranchise farmers because they have to live in sparsely populated areas in order to grow crops? Meanwhile those crops feed the shitty people of California and New York.
You hate farmers and it sickens me
You hate farmers and it sickens me
Posted on 12/16/16 at 10:18 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:They wouldn't be disenfranchised.
So you're going to disenfranchise farmers because they have to live in sparsely populated areas in order to grow crops?
Posted on 12/16/16 at 10:22 pm to pvilleguru
Blacks only make up 13% of the US and both parties try to get their vote. Let's assume the 20% in rural America are farmers. You don't think they would be catered to by a party?
Posted on 12/16/16 at 10:28 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
Let's assume the 20% in rural America are farmers.
That seems a bit high.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 10:32 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:I agree. Just needed a number to go off of. You can lower to 10%, half of the rural population, and it still holds true.
That seems a bit high.
Posted on 12/16/16 at 10:39 pm to pvilleguru
I'm in favor of cutting off California's water supply until they deport their illegals.
Posted on 12/17/16 at 12:39 am to olddawg26
quote:
I see both sides to the EC issue, but what isn't acceptable is what the left is doing by claiming it's not fair while they knew the rules before the election happened. The EC process has been around for a long time and bitching about it now afterwards is simply just clinging to straws for an excuse for losing.
I agree with this.
This should've been addressed earlier in Obama's term before it bit them in the arse.
Posted on 12/17/16 at 12:42 am to pvilleguru
quote:
Blacks only make up 13% of the US and both parties try to get their vote.
That's debatable, imho. I'd posit that Dems have been assuming the black vote and Republicans have been conceding it.
This post was edited on 12/17/16 at 6:46 pm
Posted on 12/17/16 at 1:07 am to hawgfaninc
quote:
those major population area's are looking out for their urban environment interests. fyi most of America isn't an urban environment also the people in urban environments do not make up the backbone of America. hard working blue collar Americans in fly over states are the heart and backbone of America. not to mention if the popular vote was what counted it would have drastically changed how both candidates campaigned. Trump and Hillary would have been campaigning hardcore in only those big population centers while leaving flyover states out of the equation.
Well first I literally just posted the US Census that shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans do live in an urban environment. While I do agree that people living in rural America shouldn't be forgotten about they shouldn't be the only demographic that's catered to.
Speaking of rural America, Trump won mainly thanks to the votes of working class whites, which he mainly caterd to. You said that most urban environments are only looking out for themselves and basically ignoring the rural population. Whelp aren't the rural areas doing the same thing? Why are they so special when they're not only the minority, but also on the decline?
Also I do agree with you when you said that both Trump and Clinton would have ran drastically different campaigns if it was only up to the popular vote. Yeah states like Montana, Idaho, and South Dakota probably still would've been ignored by both candidates, but a popular vote would still be beneficial to both parties believe it or not.
Instead of catering to one specific demographic (minorities for Dems and working class whites for Repubs) they would have no choice but to branch out to reach different groups. People like to complain that there aren't enough black people voting republican. Well go out to these areas and campaign for them. Same with Dems and working class whites.
Maybe this will help ease some of political and racial divides in this country. Instead of hyping up your own base and warning them of the boogeyman in the other party why not try to reach out and get as many people as possible to come together and vote for you.
This post was edited on 12/17/16 at 1:10 am
Posted on 12/17/16 at 5:21 am to Carolina Tide
quote:
Instead of catering to one specific demographic (minorities for Dems and working class whites for Repubs) they would have no choice but to branch out to reach different groups
I think it could force both parties to come back towards the middle.
Posted on 12/17/16 at 5:54 am to pvilleguru
We use the electoral college because we are a republic. We do not use the popular vote to elect the president because we do not want mob rule (true democracy).
Posted on 12/17/16 at 12:19 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
think it could force both parties to come back towards the middle
Exactly.
That would probably be the best thing for both parties.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News