Started By
Message
re: This is why people voted against the far left
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:38 am to pvilleguru
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:38 am to pvilleguru
quote:
If that's where 51% of the population is, then I don't have a problem with it.
Exactly the kind of mob vote situation the founding fathers put the EC in place to prevent.
1
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:39 am to pvilleguru
I live in Alabama and my vote will never count as long as we continue with the current system.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:42 am to pvilleguru
quote:
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.
Seems pretty consistent to me:
Basically you're championing the idea that rural America- which has many disadvantages to getting to the polls - should not be equally represented. It's more or less very closely tied to population in terms of electors, so each district should have the same voice and representation, regardless of how many people can make it to the polls.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:45 am to pvilleguru
quote:
I live in Alabama and my vote will never count as long as we continue with the current system.
Which is why winner takes all going away would be a good thing. Everyone would have a voice on the national level, and local polling and campaigning would actually mean something. Just look at the electoral map post election, and look at all of the areas that had no voice. One county in a state should not get to take all of the electors because they dominate population wise.
This post was edited on 12/23/16 at 9:47 am
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:47 am to AUbagman
quote:That chart shows that a vote in Wyoming counts 2.5x more than a vote in California, Texas, and Florida.
Seems pretty consistent to me:
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:48 am to pvilleguru
Edit: basically what I'm trying to say is this:
I'm in favor of re-adopting the Articles of Confederation. If California or Oregon or another progressive wants to frick itself over by adopting socialist policies, then the people should have that right. However, it shouldn't have any bearing on how the people of SC care to be governed. We'd be held together by a military/trade agreement that would provide a few basic needs and the rest is left up to the state. Don't like that your state is veering into lessaiz faire capitalism? Move to a state that you agree with, then.
I'm in favor of re-adopting the Articles of Confederation. If California or Oregon or another progressive wants to frick itself over by adopting socialist policies, then the people should have that right. However, it shouldn't have any bearing on how the people of SC care to be governed. We'd be held together by a military/trade agreement that would provide a few basic needs and the rest is left up to the state. Don't like that your state is veering into lessaiz faire capitalism? Move to a state that you agree with, then.
This post was edited on 12/23/16 at 9:57 am
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:52 am to crispyUGA
quote:
If you live in Alabama then your vote will never count in a popular vote situation, either.
Sure it will. It may not decide the election, but I could at least look at the total and see my vote. Until something changes, it doesn't matter who I vote for. My vote is going to whoever has the R next to their name.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:52 am to pvilleguru
I stand corrected, I misread the chart. I believe the fall-off towards the end is all of the states with the minimum to match Constitutional requirements.
With that said, I would be perfectly ok with splitting electoral votes by population, even if that required some districts to have a fraction of one. At least everyone would have a voice opposed to the majority stealing their elector.
With that said, I would be perfectly ok with splitting electoral votes by population, even if that required some districts to have a fraction of one. At least everyone would have a voice opposed to the majority stealing their elector.
This post was edited on 12/23/16 at 9:54 am
Posted on 12/23/16 at 9:54 am to AUbagman
That would at least be better than what we have now.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:19 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
Exactly the kind of mob vote situation the founding fathers put the EC in place to prevent.
It is bigger than the mob mentality.
Just in case anyone missed it, here's the election results by county in map form.
Cali and New York are big parts of our national economy, with many if not most of the biggest hubs of business and finance living on one or the other but now take a look at where the US military gets their members.
The west coast (and I literally mean the coast. Washington, Cali, and Oregon are pretty red when you get where you can't see water) and upper northeast have tremendous importance and power in the EC and congress, and they deserve it but flyover country (which has a very different world view) matters too - particularly when it is this solid. They're the glitz and glamour, but we're the grease and gears. The nation needs both, and the EC strikes that balance.
Disenfranchise all that red and you won't have mob rule, you'll have a revolution.
If those handful of states continue to be perceived as shaitting on those states in red, there's also the potential for a different form of revolution. While the (D)s didn't have an utter and complete disaster at the national level, the states were a different story. Republicans now hold the governorship in 33 states and legislative majorities in 32 states. They hold one chamber in another 13 states. Democrats hold legislative majorities in exactly 5.
It takes a vote of 34 state legislatures to call a convention to propose amendments the constitution without the consent of Congress and 38 legislatures to ratify an amendment. They're a mere 6 state house or senate elections away from having that ability.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:22 am to AUbagman
quote:
With that said, I would be perfectly ok with splitting electoral votes by population, even if that required some districts to have a fraction of one. At least everyone would have a voice opposed to the majority stealing their elector.
Splitting by population alone is simply another name for popular vote but I think everyone would quickly get behind splitting electors by congressional district with the overall state winner getting the two senate votes.
Edited to add - everyone in those vast swaths of red in Cali, Oregon, and Washington feel the same way as pville.
This post was edited on 12/23/16 at 11:23 am
Posted on 12/24/16 at 7:09 pm to higgs_boson
Liberal idiot.
Posted on 12/24/16 at 8:47 pm to pvilleguru
Despite almost a century of assault on the Constitution by the left, we are still the United States of America. Not just America. Hence, the Electoral College.
Posted on 12/24/16 at 10:16 pm to SoFla Tideroller
i think Trump won the national popular vote if we throw out the illegal immigrant votes and the voter fraud votes.
Posted on 12/24/16 at 11:14 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
Despite almost a century of assault on the Constitution by the left, we are still the United States of America.
You've still got Congress.
Page 5 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News