Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/22/17 at 8:03 pm to TeLeFaWx
You cant just skip over the fact that 29 states have it written in their laws that the electors have to vote the way of the people. There's a reason over half of the states have said law. It also refutes the fly over/rural area states argument considering those states will always be republican states. It's literally almost every state where you'd normally say would be ignored without an electoral college. Flawed as frick.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 8:04 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
I mean the Founders never imagined a world with the Internet where people would be capable of informing themselves on tons of issues. So it's whatever.
The point is that it's an antiquated system that's only actually used by 21 states, and it was never about small states having a voice. These are facts.
IMO it leaves the power states electors open to being "bought", especially in states that could go either way in any given election.
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 8:19 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 8:19 pm to cas4t
quote:
I'm sure you'd be saying that had Hillary won the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote.
You're right, I would have been. When that happens, it's a glaring indictment of your campaign strategy. Had Trump lost that way, I'd have called him/his team out on their incompetence, just like I did in the aftermath of the McCain/Romney defeats. Never was on board with EC bashing. That's the goal to win, not the popular vote.
You know I'm pretty even-handed when it comes to politics. It ain't a team sport. Trump has already made some glaring missteps to go along with his moves in the right direction, IMO.
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 8:31 pm to TbirdSpur2010
I was by no means a Hillary supporter and obviously she made critical errors campaigning. That's on her, as she knows damn well how the system works. But see above and last page for my points on the EC. My outlook is different because I don't identify with either party, which I've made clear on this board for years, and I am in full favor of a multi party system. I think there's many pieces to that puzzle, but it starts with eliminating the EC. Again, less than half the states actually use it anyways. It's more for show, because 9/10 an elector is going to swing the way of their voters for obvious reasons. And in so many other states, they are required to by state law. But the 1/10 has cost elections, and I find that a bit disturbing. Talk about opening up pandora's box for corruption. We all remember what may or may not have happened in Florida in 2000 as one glaring example.
I'll ask this and then I'll stop harping on this one example, as long as someone chimes in: if the EC works so well, why do 29 states have it written in law that the EC has to follow the popular vote?
I'll ask this and then I'll stop harping on this one example, as long as someone chimes in: if the EC works so well, why do 29 states have it written in law that the EC has to follow the popular vote?
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 8:35 pm to cas4t
quote:
I am in full favor of a multi party system.
Right there with you, actually
quote:
think there's many pieces to that puzzle, but it starts with eliminating the EC.
I think there has to be a siphoning of three money stream from both parties into multiple other parties first. Establish alternatives before touching the EC (I don't think we can come up with a better weighted system right now--too many chefs would be in that kitchen).
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 8:37 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Fair point. But again, it's really just for show at this point. Most states go the route of the popular vote due to state law or by "i wanna get re elected so I better do this"
The only time it seems to go the other direction is when some weird shite goes down. I don't believe it's protecting the people as it's meant to.
I edited above with a question too, you probably were responding before I had it typed up.
The only time it seems to go the other direction is when some weird shite goes down. I don't believe it's protecting the people as it's meant to.
I edited above with a question too, you probably were responding before I had it typed up.
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 8:41 pm to TbirdSpur2010
I just don't see how money will ever flow to a 3rd party when most citizens believe voting for a third party is a wasted vote. If there was ever a time for an actual 3rd party candidate to rise, it was this year, with the 2 most unlikable candidates in the history of the United States presidential election. Maybe this will open up some eyes, but being stuck with Gary frickin' Johnson is a bit disheartening. And I'm not normally a pessimist. I swear. 
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 8:46 pm to cas4t
quote:
if the EC works so well, why do 29 states have it written in law that the EC has to follow the popular vote?
I'm not saying the EC is the best system out there or "works so well." Not really my argument.
I'm saying that everyone knows the ROE going in, and attempting to change it in the current hyperpartisan political climate would do more harm than good. Prefer trying to forcibly interject a viable 3rd (4th?) party option.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 9:00 pm to cas4t
quote:
being stuck with Gary frickin' Johnson is a bit disheartening. And I'm not normally a pessimist. I swear.
I hate to deepen your pessimism, but we also have to consider that maybe there is no fix at this point. Perhaps we've already passed the point of no return and we're well and truly fricked--we just don't collectively know it yet
Posted on 2/22/17 at 9:00 pm to TbirdSpur2010
I'd like to see both. I think occurrences like the Florida EC vote controversy (putting it mildly) from 2000 do more harm than good. No telling what goes on that isn't as obvious as that one.
Unfortunately in a 2 party system someone is always left pointing and saying "haha keep whining, we won!" See the poli board thread by bamarep as a prime example. Just pure idiocy and pushing the natural divide. (You and I have discussed this numerous times- same page). Point being, I'd meet in the middle and would see it as a step in the right direction to forcibly interject a 3rd or 4th party as you said. But I don't think it's enough in the long run.
Senators and house reps of swing states are sketchy as frick. I think you have to be a certain breed to actually go into politics in one of those states. JMO
Unfortunately in a 2 party system someone is always left pointing and saying "haha keep whining, we won!" See the poli board thread by bamarep as a prime example. Just pure idiocy and pushing the natural divide. (You and I have discussed this numerous times- same page). Point being, I'd meet in the middle and would see it as a step in the right direction to forcibly interject a 3rd or 4th party as you said. But I don't think it's enough in the long run.
Senators and house reps of swing states are sketchy as frick. I think you have to be a certain breed to actually go into politics in one of those states. JMO
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 9:02 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 9:02 pm to cas4t
quote:
I think you have to be a certain breed to actually go into politics
Period, tbh
Posted on 2/22/17 at 9:26 pm to cas4t
quote:
Fair point. But again, it's really just for show at this point. Most states go the route of the popular vote due to state law or by "i wanna get re elected so I better do this"
I mean the Electoral College is designed to be a winner take all in the state unless you want to be a faithless elector. If it's not a winner take all, then you don't leverage the value of the smaller states. Are you saying you want the states to have a second layer of electoral college within the electoral college? I've only seen Inception once, I don't want to walk down this road again.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 9:29 pm to cas4t
quote:
The point is that it's an antiquated system that's only actually used by 21 states, and it was never about small states having a voice. These are facts.
Every state uses the Electoral College to decide the President, not just 21. All of them do. It's the Electoral College. I really don't get what point you're making. It's a winner take all system within each state deciding how to use those votes.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 6:00 am to TeLeFaWx
Because he was criticizing the thing that got him elected. He was asked about if he still wanted to change it of course he didn't want to answer only saying I beat Hillary fair and square.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 7:46 am to karralum
quote:
he was criticizing the thing that got him elected
He wasn't running in 2012, dumbass.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:47 am to karralum
quote:
Because he was criticizing the thing that got him elected. He was asked about if he still wanted to change it of course he didn't want to answer only saying I beat Hillary fair and square.
So?
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:50 am to TeLeFaWx
You're either missing the point entirely or just being obtuse. I don't know how else to put it. The vast majority of the rural area states electors have to vote in conjunction with the popular vote. Those states are republican states and therefore the EC is always going to follow the popular vote anyways. This leaves us with swing states that could go either way in any given election open to corruption. We've seen it. It's happened. It also essentially leaves the presidential election in the hands of few states. I don't know how I can be any clearer, there's tons of information on this if you'd like to look into it. It's exactly what happened in the 2000 election.
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 10:04 am
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:52 am to TbirdSpur2010
It's a fair criticism. In 2012 the EC was a travesty. In 2016 it wasn't. I think karraculum is trying to say Trump is a hypocrite. Which he is- by definition. This is one example of many. His Wall St. cabinet appointees are even more hypocritical IMO.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:46 am to Tidemeister
quote:
Today's news reports his approval rating at 38%. Is that the worst in past 50 years or however long that poll rating has existed? I feel positive about it though because at least it's not single digits.
That's a CBS poll. Rasmussen has his approval rating at 52%.
Want to guess who was the most accurate in predicting the election result? Here's a hint. It wasn't CBS.
Even more importantly, neither one matters. He is the POTUS.
Page 7 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News