Started By
Message
re: This is why people voted against the far left
Posted on 12/17/16 at 1:11 pm to Sticky37
Posted on 12/17/16 at 1:11 pm to Sticky37
quote:
We use the electoral college because we are a republic.
We're a republic because we elect representatives to go make laws. The EC isnt a defining feature of a republic.
Ive heard so much about not wanting Chicago, LA, and NY deciding our President but the same works in reverse. How would it feel to live in the major economic and population centers and have farmers in Nebraska have more say?
Higgs was correct earlier in that no system will be perfect. The EC certainly isnt when SD voters get more influence per vote than the economic hubs of the country. I personally would prefer we just go with a Parlimentary system, but thats never gonna happen.
3
Posted on 12/19/16 at 8:31 pm to Duke
Campaigning would change for sure with a strictly popular vote. If most people live in the big cities, promises and backroom deals would be made all day long. "Vote for me and my legislation will favor Metropolis and the things you want or need."
Happens now, there would just not be any pretense about it, then.
Happens now, there would just not be any pretense about it, then.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:32 pm to jcolding41
OP: Problem: you sir are wrong. Not only did dem cand for president easily win the popular vote, nationally, dem cand for congress got over a million more votes than rep cand. So what are you talking about?
Posted on 12/21/16 at 1:56 am to Duke
quote:
no system will be perfect
B-b-b-but muh socialism i need my free stuff cuz baby boomers ruined the economy
Posted on 12/21/16 at 6:24 am to jim712
quote:
OP: Problem: you sir are wrong. Not only did dem cand for president easily win the popular vote, nationally, dem cand for congress got over a million more votes than rep cand. So what are you talking about?
Check the makeup of state legislatures and governor's offices and get back with me.
The (D) party got mauled across most of America this last election. Overwhelmingly winning a few large areas isn't going to change that fact.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:11 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
I'm all for the popular vote
Same here. one person = one vote. it doesn't get any fairer than that.
Right now no matter who I vote for, the fate is predetermined unless you live in one of swing states.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 6:50 pm to Duke
quote:
Ive heard so much about not wanting Chicago, LA, and NY deciding our President but the same works in reverse. How would it feel to live in the major economic and population centers and have farmers in Nebraska have more say?
If rural interests were homogeneous to the same degree urban interests are, I would agree. But the sun belt, the midwest, the rust belt, are all different enough that you're not serving interests to the same degree you would be if you had straight voting and urban interests. I think there might be an argument to be made that you can leverage the low population states to a minimum of 2 votes instead of 3(segue; why does D.C. have the same number of votes as a state?) but urban centers have so many advantages over the rural areas, I'm fine with the current set up where they have more in the Presidential vote. I say this as a Texan, and my vote has less impact than every redneck in Dixie. Think about that. Someone educated at LSU or Alabama has more say in the Presidential election than I do. On it's face, that just seems irresponsible. In reality, the left would have a permanent stranglehold on politics, it's actually not that bad. Now. If Trump actually fixes the inner cities and starts to get the black vote, we could see a stranglehold the other way. The ivory tower elites might leave the country.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:03 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
If rural interests were homogeneous to the same degree urban interests are, I would agree. But the sun belt, the midwest, the rust belt, are all different enough that you're not serving interests to the same degree you would be if you had straight voting and urban interests.
Excellent point.
quote:
(segue; why does D.C. have the same number of votes as a state?)
That in particular has always bothered me
quote:
If Trump actually fixes the inner cities and starts to get the black vote, we could see a stranglehold the other way.
Him stumping in Michigan during the campaign and appointing Ben Carson where he did are excellent steps to making inroads, at least. Too often the left has assumed the black vote, and the right has summarily conceded it.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:34 pm to higgs_boson
quote:
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.
Terrible idea. The popular vote would allow California to pretty much decide the election.
The only change that needs to occur is an actual representative electoral system. Eliminate the winner take all mechanism for states, that way every district has their say on a national level.
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 8:37 pm
Posted on 12/22/16 at 9:40 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
why does D.C. have the same number of votes as a state?
Because it has a larger population than Wyoming and Vermont? Let's just get rid of their say as well.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 7:31 am to dmjones
How about a better idea - just get rid of D.C. as a political entity and make it part of either Maryland or Virginia.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 7:36 am to AUbagman
quote:
Terrible idea. The popular vote would allow California to pretty much decide the election.
The only change that needs to occur is an actual representative electoral system. Eliminate the winner take all mechanism for states, that way every district has their say on a national level.
Yep. Everyone on the left is harping about the popular vote totals but they are glossing over the fact that without California and New York, Trump won by several million votes.
You think there is division and social unrest today? Create a system where 48 of the 50 states feel as if they have no voice. It would very likely be the end of our nation.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 8:02 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
You think there is division and social unrest today? Create a system where 48 of the 50 states feel as if they have no voice. It would very likely be the end of our nation.
If that's where 51% of the population is, then I don't have a problem with it.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 8:10 am to pvilleguru
Hell, right now the election is essentially decided by a few states. Florida, Ohio, a few others (I don't know the others. I pay little attention because my vote doesn't count.)
Posted on 12/23/16 at 8:53 am to pvilleguru
quote:
that's where 51% of the population is, then I don't have a problem with it.
So you have no issue with populous echo chambers of groupthink controlling rural America? Large cities have an inherent advantage of getting people to the polls, it's the nature of public transit and more polling stations. It's not that they have the majority of population, it's just concentrated.
This post was edited on 12/23/16 at 8:54 am
Posted on 12/23/16 at 8:54 am to pvilleguru
quote:
Hell, right now the election is essentially decided by a few states. Florida, Ohio, a few others (I don't know the others. I pay little attention because my vote doesn't count.)
Precisely why winner take all mechanisms need to be eliminated. People in the black belt have no voice, just as farmers in California don't.
This post was edited on 12/23/16 at 8:55 am
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:23 am to AUbagman
quote:
So you have no issue with populous echo chambers of groupthink controlling rural America?
I have no issue with each person getting one vote for president.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:25 am to AUbagman
quote:
It's not that they have the majority of population, it's just concentrated.
So they should be penalized because they have more neighbors?
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:27 am to pvilleguru
quote:
So they should be penalized because they have more neighbors?
There is no penalization occuring, electors are evenly distributed. What it doed do is give equal voice to those in rural America.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:34 am to AUbagman
quote:
There is no penalization occuring,
Sure there is. When there is a different ratio of population to electoral votes, then someone is being penalized. That isn't equal voice. That is going someone more of a voice than someone else.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News