Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: ...but it should also be noted that it isn't really fifty-one separate popular votes because that's not what they are.
In forty-nine elections the winner (majority or plurality) takes all the electors and the losers get nothing. In the remaining two, it's proportional based on vote totals. Thus fifty-one separate popular vote counts determine who gets the electors.
Right, and you didn't quote the rest of what I wrote that explains what you're actually voting for. What you are doing is explaining how states get to send electors to Washington, which isn't what I'm talking about. No matter what you claim, you aren't really voting for who you want to be president. You're voting for someone to cast a vote a month later and there is nothing really stopping them from doing so how they see fit.
As far as the electors not being accountable, don't forget that all electors are "party loyalists" or "hacks" if you want and will vote as their told. Doing otherwise will immediately end any personal political aspirations and possibly destroy their party like static electricity destroyed the Hindenburg were the outcome of the election to actually change.
Seriously? Did you even read the second half of what I wrote? I've already said they're picked by the parties. I'm glad you rest so easy on the fact that these "party loyalists" are uncorruptible and have no fear that a system that allows them to do what they want means that it will never happen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 22:50:53
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: ...but it should also be noted that it isn't really fifty-one separate popular votes because that's not what they are.
In forty-nine elections the winner (majority or plurality) takes all the electors and the losers get nothing. In the remaining two, it's proportional based on vote totals. Thus fifty-one separate popular vote counts determine who gets the electors.
Right, and you didn't quote the rest of what I wrote that explains what you're actually voting for. What you are doing is explaining how states get to send electors to Washington, which isn't what I'm talking about. No matter what you claim, you aren't really voting for who you want to be president. You're voting for someone to cast a vote a month later and there is nothing really stopping them from doing so how they see fit.
Direct or indirect, it's still a popular vote that determines the outcome.
As far as the electors not being accountable, don't forget that all electors are "party loyalists" or "hacks" if you want and will vote as their told. Doing otherwise will immediately end any personal political aspirations and possibly destroy their party like static electricity destroyed the Hindenburg were the outcome of the election to actually change.
Seriously? Did you even read the second half of what I wrote? I've already said they're picked by the parties. I'm glad you rest so easy on the fact that these "party loyalists" are uncorruptible and have no fear that a system that allows them to do what they want means that it will never happen.
You pick and choose snippets to respond to just like everyone else on this thread does so stop getting all bent out of shape about it. Or at least stop doing it in the same paragraph which you make straw man arguments.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/14 23:02:21
Co'tor Shas wrote: So what you are saying is that because there are more people in cities, even if they are they majority, feth them?
I was about to compose a response to this first part when I noticed you had already done so in the same post.
Co'tor Shas wrote: ...the design of the electoral collage was to give small states equal representation.
So, you're essentially face palming yourself. Nice job.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Now that electors are chosen by the people and not the state legislatures, it no longer really works.
Incorrect. It doesn't matter how they're chosen. It's still designed to be a check on power of the most populous States.
Read it again. Specifically about how states act. When the constitution was originally written the states acted far more like separate entries. They competed against each other. It was the politicians of each state who chose the president. Now, it's chosen by the people, and the people in one state really don't compete with the people of another. There is no longer a reason. Especially since the population shifts have grown so great.
And small states are still protected, via then senate. The whole point it that it worked originally, but does not work now. Right now it just disenfranchises voters by making the votes of people living in small states matter far more, and makes it so only a small handful of swing states matter. With a popular vote, New York State and North Dakota have the same power, none. It is the people who are given the power. And that is where the power should be.
Not only that, the whole premise of "they'd only campaign in the big states" is stupid. First, you wouldn't campaign state to state, but region to region. There is a big differnce between what the people in NYC want, and what the people of the Hudson Valley want (for example). I did the math on this a while back, and using the idea of 1D+1R=0, it shows that big states (Such as NY, CA and TX) would have far less power if you do insist on thinking state by state.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'll try this one more time, we had low voter turnout this year. When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here. Our population is growing and our number of eligible voters is growing so you can get "a lot" of votes while having a low percentage of voters cast ballots. Clinton's number of voters in the other 49 states aside from California underperformed Obama's numbers and more importantly Trump's. Trump got more votes than Hillary in a majority of states because Hillary had low turnout in a majority of states. You can willfully ignore the fact that low turnout cost Hillary the election but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
I'll try this one more time though seems you aren't willing to face the simple facts that don't support your narrative:
Trump: 60,367,401
Cllinton: 61,035,460
Can you do simple substraction? Who got more votes?
If Clinton had low support then Trump had abysmal support.
In a Electoral College system... the national popular vote is meaningless.
It's meaningless to the extent that it obviously is possible to get over half the votes and lose. It is meaningful to the extent that a government that ignores the more than half of the population who voted against them and thereby proceeds to piss them off is probably going to run into some trouble.
(I'm ignoring the independent votes but the principle is still valid.)
To put it another way, if the Republicans want to win the next election they can't rely on Electoral Colleges and the best way to make sure is to get support from the 51% of people who didn't support them this time. The opposite of course is true for the Democrats.
whembly wrote: This is why we have the Electoral College:
With a popular vote system, candidates would simple hit the blue areas in the map.
So what you are saying is that because there are more people in cities, even if they are they majority, feth them?
That's not what I'm saying.
And, no, it's not "civics 101". It the person who made this meme actually took a civics class, they'd know that the design of the electoral collage was to give small states equal representation. More specifically, state legislatures. This was when our states were much more like a traditional state (that is to say, a country). Now that electors are chosen by the people and not the state legislatures, it no longer really works.
No. It was a compromise.... where as the number of electors each states get is the 2 senator + the number of congressional district.
It's working fine.
And even then, the whole "You only need to win over these areas!" is true now. By getting slim margins in a handful of states, you can win the EC without the popular, to a stunning degree of difference.
That's patently untrue. Case in point, has Trump or Hillary campaigned heavily in those big cities in Illinois, NY, CA or TX?
Plus, I don't really care if a minority is forced to go along with a majority as long as their rights aren't attacked (which is why you need a majority in both houses, plus 2/3rds of the states). It's democracy, it's not really anything new.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'll try this one more time, we had low voter turnout this year. When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here. Our population is growing and our number of eligible voters is growing so you can get "a lot" of votes while having a low percentage of voters cast ballots. Clinton's number of voters in the other 49 states aside from California underperformed Obama's numbers and more importantly Trump's. Trump got more votes than Hillary in a majority of states because Hillary had low turnout in a majority of states. You can willfully ignore the fact that low turnout cost Hillary the election but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
I'll try this one more time though seems you aren't willing to face the simple facts that don't support your narrative:
Trump: 60,367,401
Cllinton: 61,035,460
Can you do simple substraction? Who got more votes?
If Clinton had low support then Trump had abysmal support.
In a Electoral College system... the national popular vote is meaningless.
It's meaningless to the extent that it obviously is possible to get over half the votes and lose. It is meaningful to the extent that a government that ignores the more than half of the population who voted against them and thereby proceeds to piss them off is probably going to run into some trouble.
It's not a perfect system, but it's arguably better than a pure national popular vote.
To put it another way, if the Republicans want to win the next election they can't rely on Electoral Colleges and the best way to make sure is to get support from the 51% of people who didn't support them this time. The opposite of course is true for the Democrats.
No. The goal is to win each state.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/14 23:29:56
Breotan wrote: Direct or indirect, it's still a popular vote that determines the outcome.
For electors, which is the point I'm trying to make that you're arguing with me about.
You pick and choose snippets to respond to just like everyone else on this thread does so stop getting all bent out of shape about it. Or at least stop doing it in the same paragraph which you make straw man arguments.
"You do it so I can do it it do, too." Nice, my 7 year old daughter would be tickled to know that tactic works as a grown up.
By the way, what was my straw man argument?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
djones520 wrote: Regarding Jamie Dimon, I found this quote of his interesting.
I've gotten disturbed at some of the Democrats' anti-business behavior, the attacks on work ethic and successful people. I think it's very counterproductive. ... It doesn't mean I don't have their values. I want jobs. I want a more equitable society. I don't mind paying higher taxes. ... I do think we're our brother's keeper but I think that attacking that which creates all things, is not the right way to go about it.
A man who spent his whole life donating to the Democrat party. Just goes further to show why Trump won. This whole election was spent on sensationalizing social issues. In the end, it was all about the economy.
i think that is very true. Social Issues are well and good, very important. But for some people, that isnt important. What is important for a vast majority of voters is being able to support their family, being able to send their kid on the field trip or music lessons or save up for college. It sounds callous, but why should someone care about Black Lives Matter when they cant afford food?
It reminds me of a conversation my friend had. It turned into being about privilege. It was basically this "The concept is that we use our privilege to uplift others, but when I can barely uplift myself, why should I give a damn?"
whembly wrote: It's not a perfect system, but it's arguably better than a pure national popular vote.
No. No it is not.
When four out of 58 elections (five if you count the election of 1824, and you probably should) produce a winner who didn't receive the most votes, it's impossible to say it's "better" than a system that guarantees the person with the most votes wins.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 23:36:14
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
whembly wrote: This is why we have the Electoral College:
Spoiler:
With a popular vote system, candidates would simple hit the blue areas in the map.
So what you are saying is that because there are more people in cities, even if they are they majority, feth them?
That's not what I'm saying.
Than what are you saying?
And, no, it's not "civics 101". It the person who made this meme actually took a civics class, they'd know that the design of the electoral collage was to give small states equal representation. More specifically, state legislatures. This was when our states were much more like a traditional state (that is to say, a country). Now that electors are chosen by the people and not the state legislatures, it no longer really works.
No. It was a compromise.... where as the number of electors each states get is the 2 senator + the number of congressional district.
Yes, a comparmise to make it so small states weren't ignored. So literally what I just said.
It's working fine.
Which is what I disagree with
And even then, the whole "You only need to win over these areas!" is true now. By getting slim margins in a handful of states, you can win the EC without the popular, to a stunning degree of difference.
That's patently untrue. Case in point, has Trump or Hillary campaigned heavily in those big cities in Illinois, NY, CA or TX?
Plus, I don't really care if a minority is forced to go along with a majority as long as their rights aren't attacked (which is why you need a majority in both houses, plus 2/3rds of the states). It's democracy, it's not really anything new.
what right is attacked??
I'm not saying anything is under attack. Re-read the sentence.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: No. It was a compromise.... where as the number of electors each states get is the 2 senator + the number of congressional district.
Except that isn't what happens because the electoral votes aren't distributed fairly across the states. And yeah, it was a compromise... a compromise due to the fact that there were large numbers of people who couldn't vote living in one geographical area and the people in power wanted to stay in power.
It's working fine.
Not when it fails 8% of the time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 23:42:08
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
And this is a big thing. If your car failed to start 8% of the time, it would be annoying. If your breaks fail 8% of the time, it would be disastrous. If your mind didn't directed the car in the right way 8% of the time, you wouldn't even get your license (in this, admittedly poor, anology, mind=government).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: It's not a perfect system, but it's arguably better than a pure national popular vote.
No. No it is not.
When four out of 58 elections (five if you count the election of 1824, and you probably should) produce a winner who didn't receive the most votes, it's impossible to say it's "better" than a system that guarantees the person with the most votes wins.
Well... golly gee...
By that logic the House Republican won the 'National Popular Vote' by 3+ million votes... shouldn't every seat on the ballot go to the victors?
Spoiler:
feth no!
Even better, the Democrats won the 'National Popular Vote' in the Senate elections... by that same logic, do all the 1/3rd Senate seat that ran this year go to Democrat party?
Spoiler:
Oh feth no!
Realize that we live in a federation of 50 states.
And... yeah... the Electoral College is working fine in the context of federalism...
Trying to argue that giving a national office to the victor of the national vote is the same as giving all the district offices to some weird total of voters is pretty silly.
Realize that we live in a federation of 50 states.
And... yeah... the Electoral College is working fine in the context of federalism...
Unless you want to do away with having 50 states?
Well...... Since you mention it, there are a number of countries out there with federalist governmental systems that are quite successful. We could perhaps look at what they do well and emulate them?
d-usa wrote: Trying to argue that giving a national office to the victor of the national vote is the same as giving all the district offices to some weird total of voters is pretty silly.
Especially since not all of the senate goes up at once.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Compel wrote: So, twitter seems to be really, really worried about Steve Bannon.
Having seen some quotes that are, apparently, attributed to him, it seems they have reason to be...
Bannon's what would come out of the rift if you reached through to the Evil Universe and grabbed this guy:
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
whembly wrote: It's not a perfect system, but it's arguably better than a pure national popular vote.
No. No it is not.
When four out of 58 elections (five if you count the election of 1824, and you probably should) produce a winner who didn't receive the most votes, it's impossible to say it's "better" than a system that guarantees the person with the most votes wins.
The system works exactly as intended. The popular is inconsequential by design, it just happens that 92% of the time the Electoral College outcome aligns with the popular vote outcome. The Electoral College is set up to require the winning presidential candidate to win a majority of states. We are a nation of semi autonomous states that have chosen to combine themselves into a unified nation. The president is leader of the states so the president must win the support of a majority of states. The system doesn't care how many people live in each state it doesn't matter because the states are what counts, win the states you win the election regardless of how many people vote in the state.
Article II in the constitution is very clear that the states control the choosing of electors. In the event of a tie the House will vote to break the tie and requirements for the House are:
But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.
A majority of states must participate in the House vote because the states are what is important because the nation is made up of multiple states each with equal standing so the states have to elect the president. We aren't one single state we're a collection of 50 states.
The US's electoral college was created two hundred years ago and has not been seriously revised since. Its an older system. And has a 7% fail rate. (That being the popular vote doesn't actually win the election). Now I do think that in both circumstances it should be fixed, as I and a few others still think that the system under any circumstances should be reworked because of how easy it is to exploit you can possibly get 21% of the population's vote just by going through the smaller states. Now is that a possible? No. But statistically it is.
The idea is that the Electoral College is currently incapable of dealing with our current population.
There is a possibility of people exploit the system rather easily. In fact, it is a system with massive problems such as Territories having no voting rights whatsoever. (Even you are from the main continent and from the US and you are a US citizen you cannot vote. You can vote anywhere but in the US Territories)
There are lots of problems with it. To say it is perfectly capable of handling today's information is widely wrong. We need to change it, as humanity continues to evolve so too should our systems we use.
Heres some videos on it:
ahem lets start"
Realize that we live in a federation of 50 states.
And... yeah... the Electoral College is working fine in the context of federalism...
Unless you want to do away with having 50 states?
Yes, The system is ancient. You are using a fallacy argument by high road. In this case yes, do away with the system, this isn't a federation its a Republic. Big difference.
We are not separate state powers we are separate territories with separate governments ruled by a large organization. We are a republic. We elect someone to vote for us. But again. We should have more people representing us. 301 Million people are represented by less than a thousand people. We need more seats in the house of reps, and we need more electoral college votes, and the vote should be more representative of the people.
Trying to argue that giving a national office to the victor of the national vote is the same as giving all the district offices to some weird total of voters is pretty silly.
Not really. The system we have now would be far better with improvement and getting rid of the electoral college is a great idea, by doing something better. The electoral college can still decide if they wanted to, but the Electors who are not voted or chosen but given these positions must be voted into those positions. They can vote for who ever they want and thats a bit too much power for an Elector. That is the problem with the system. Electors should be ELECTED, otherwise they could in certain circumstances go against the will of the people and the nation.
That is what needed. There is a giant hole for exploitation and because of that we need to cover up that hole. National Vote was used for Brexit, and could be used here, but in a more of a limited format.
Instead of a national vote how about we split the electoral votes. So if one candidate gets 60 % and the other 40% one gets 2, one gets 1. This will then allow for recounting, if it is a 49, 50% in a big state, then they recount it. Or split it. And you would still not tie. (Not perfect but an example. Or the whole states vote is thrown out.)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/15 03:50:30
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Treating the college as a failure for not corresponding to the popular vote is fallacious. It was never designed to adhere to the popular vote. In that front it is operating as intended.
At the same time it's kind of a dick move to tell people the winner of popular vote doesn't matter. Might as well just tell them voting doesn't matter, and that is one of the problems with the College; that it negates voting in a way because if you live in staunchly red state you might as well stay home because no vote you cast for your candidate will help them win. Likewise for a staunchly blue state. This is another reason why proportional distribution of Electoral votes really should be standard. There's a lot of data supporting that one of the leading causes of low voter turn out in the US (which has always lagged behind other modern democracies), is the college itself. People don't vote when their votes can't effect the outcome and that's an issue that runs on both sides of the isle. It's notable that a number of states (California and Pennsylvania are good examples) that are often regarded as "blue" states in Presidential elections are much more republican than they appear but only at the state level and that's because the dynamics of voting change at the state and national level when considering the way the electoral college plays out.
LordofHats wrote: Treating the college as a failure for not corresponding to the popular vote is fallacious. It was never designed to adhere to the popular vote. In that front it is operating as intended.
At the same time it's kind of a dick move to tell people the winner of popular vote doesn't matter. Might as well just tell them voting doesn't matter, and that is one of the problems with the College; that it negates voting in a way because if you live in staunchly red state you might as well stay home because no vote you cast for your candidate will help them win. Likewise for a staunchly blue state. This is another reason why proportional distribution of Electoral votes really should be standard. There's a lot of data supporting that one of the leading causes of low voter turn out in the US (which has always lagged behind other modern democracies), is the college itself. People don't vote when their votes can't effect the outcome and that's an issue that runs on both sides of the isle. It's notable that a number of states (California and Pennsylvania are good examples) that are often regarded as "blue" states in Presidential elections are much more republican than they appear but only at the state level and that's because the dynamics of voting change at the state and national level when considering the way the electoral college plays out.
I Don't think I said that the popular vote should determine the presidency neither did any of the videos just the idea that the Electors are not democratically elected or how they could if they wanted to choose a president to whomever they wish. the system as I have said is old and very few people are willing to move on it. Plus gerrymandering is also a widdening issue. I do think it cannot deal with the amount of people currently in the US it is starting to show its strain and limits.
I think the failure is that it allows for candidates to 'cheat' the system by literally staying with the smallest states, and still winning. It was designed for all the states to be given power in some form yet, some states are given less power because of the electoral college.
It has created a dynamic that now is almost ingrained in american society which is : Your Vote Doesn't Matter because of the Electoral College.
Because of that, people as you have said are less willing to vote.
The Electoral College back then was created so that states could not choose a president for their people. Instead it was electors who would go out and speak for those townships and counties and states to elect a president. Now its a hilariously old and outdated system. With many holes in it.
I think it should be changed but not just because of the popular vote. That would be asinine, the average voter should not determine this country's president. But they should be represented.
But yes I agree and disagree with your statement.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Part of the problem is that states just don't matter as much as they used to 200 years ago. We no longer live in a time where people spend their entire lives within ten miles of where they're born, or where it takes a day's travel to get to the next town. Modern communications, the automobile, and the internet have blurred the lines. Less and less do we define ourselves according to the state we happen to live in. More and more we are becoming a nation of people, not a nation of states.
So maybe it is time for the people to have a stronger voice. The electoral college served its purpose, but maybe its time has passed. I like the idea of splitting the electors based on the proportions of the votes in the state. Means my vote might actually, finally matter here in Texas, and Whembly's vote matter in his state (IIRC you've said you live in a blue state).
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Tannhauser42 wrote: Part of the problem is that states just don't matter as much as they used to 200 years ago. We no longer live in a time where people spend their entire lives within ten miles of where they're born, or where it takes a day's travel to get to the next town. Modern communications, the automobile, and the internet have blurred the lines. Less and less do we define ourselves according to the state we happen to live in. More and more we are becoming a nation of people, not a nation of states.
So maybe it is time for the people to have a stronger voice. The electoral college served its purpose, but maybe its time has passed. I like the idea of splitting the electors based on the proportions of the votes in the state. Means my vote might actually, finally matter here in Texas, and Whembly's vote matter in his state (IIRC you've said you live in a blue state).
The hardest part about that is that its an easy fix to a complicated problem which means! It won't actually solve its more of a bandaid of a bigger problem ( gerrymandering etc). But we will see in the future. But yes that would definately help both parties out almost entirely.
I mean there are probably better ways to implement than my idea. But Who knows maybe Donald Trump will ask congress to work with him on it. And essentially add a new amendment to the constitution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/15 04:19:33
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Part of the problem is that states just don't matter as much as they used to 200 years ago. We no longer live in a time where people spend their entire lives within ten miles of where they're born, or where it takes a day's travel to get to the next town. Modern communications, the automobile, and the internet have blurred the lines. Less and less do we define ourselves according to the state we happen to live in. More and more we are becoming a nation of people, not a nation of states.
I 100% disagree with this.
Just my opinion Tanner.... I could be wrong, but I love the idea of having 50 laboratories trying things out without forcing the rest of the states to toe the line.
Kinda like marijuana laws popping up in several states, and the other states are observing how it goes. Knowwhatimean?
So maybe it is time for the people to have a stronger voice. The electoral college served its purpose, but maybe its time has passed. I like the idea of splitting the electors based on the proportions of the votes in the state.
I don't mind that idea.
Means my vote might actually, finally matter here in Texas, and Whembly's vote matter in his state (IIRC you've said you live in a blue state).
I live in Missouri. I knew Trump was going to win... we are a REALLY red state now.
CptJake wrote: Exactly, as your other post pointed out. If the 'game' was to win the popular vote the numbers would have looked a lot different and the campaigns would have been a lot different. tneva82's argument is pretty silly at this point because of that. Winning CA by over a million votes counts for the numbers he is using..
Sigh. I'm not claiming Trump isn't winner. I'm saying it's silly(idiotic actually) to claim Hillary had low support when she obviously had bigger support than Trump.
Here's newsflash: You don't NEED huge support to be president of USA. That's how USA decided to make their voting system. Technically speaking you don't need bigger support than ~two dozen people. So if you would win presidency with ~2 dozen votes your support would be larger than somebody that had 150M votes? That's silly claim but technically possible in USA election system.
Winner of presidency!=who had largest support. USA election system doesn't REQUIRE you to have big support. Simple as that.
CptJake wrote: Campaigning takes resources. They are spent where the most 'bang for the buck' occurs. I stand by my statement. There would be no reason to hit other states, except for a handful of major cities.
Funnily enough that's the case now as well though. Just different states. Rather than largest you go for the few contested ones as can be seen from charts that show much Trump&Clinton spent and where.
I live in Missouri. I knew Trump was going to win... we are a REALLY red state now.
'Tis why I voted for Johnson.
I voted with out casting a ballot for any of the lot. I did vote on the other stuff though, just didn't feel confident with either candidate so I put in Micky Mouse, like I do on every ballot if I don't know any good ones to put on there.
But I do to live in a state that is slow when it comes to counting (not Chicago currently living Michigan which went all red this tiem round, but I am not surprised by that either).
Michigan has been having a lot of problems with 'democrats'.
The votes have not even finished being counted.
Going to look pretty silly if Trump wins the popular vote too.
Source?
So far hillary is pulling ahead, and most of those votes are from Cali. And there is a predicted 7 million in total to count still and half those (4 million) are going to clinton and trump with the other 3 million).
Compel wrote: So, twitter seems to be really, really worried about Steve Bannon.
Having seen some quotes that are, apparently, attributed to him, it seems they have reason to be...
I quite liked the tweet that read something like "Critics state that Bannon is a White Nationalist, whilst white nationalists state that he is in fact a White Nationalist"
what right is attacked??
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
