Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It it's baseball game, Trump got the most runs and hillary got the most hits. If we changed the rules so that most hits won, the strategy would change and everybody would be bunting. Likewise if the goal to win was popular vote or counties nationally, the candidates would campaign much differently.
Arguing to change the rules afterwards so that your candidate wins is unsportsman like.
Trump won a landslide victory of 306 vs 232. It's most definatelt a mandate. The country has been leaning farther and farther right ever since 2010. If you want to change things, focus on 2018 midterm.
I don't think people are saying it should be changed for this past election, but for future ones.
I don't find this surprising. I'd expect similar divides in previous and future elections.
And what does it prove? To me, it proves that urbanization draws the people who have a smaller "endowment" of the resources and tools needed to prosper in an industrialized society. This is an imbalance that can be traced all the way back to the Industrial Revolution; it might be noted, for example, that it was the Parisians who first resorted to the concept of a small, usually non-cash "daily dole", and that might account for the fact that Paris dominates the French economy in a way that the smaller cities of Great Britain, Germany and Italy do not.
As prone to corruption and manipulation as the present societal "safety net" might be, it won't be abolished in a society where the majority of us live from paycheck to paycheck, (or pension check to pension check, or any other mechanism). But the system is badly in need of reform, probably via a system of local oversight which recognizes the differential in living costs in rural vs urbanized areas (the IRS has already made the first steps in this direction via differentials in the deductibility of travel expenses, and the British reduce Unemployment Compensation payments in certain metros) and measures to identify and restrict those who pursue "gainful indolence".
And of course, the career bureaucrats who administer this system have absolutely no incentive to reduce the expense.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-19-2016 at 12:47 PM..
Breitbart is saying with this article that hundreds of thousands of empty sq miles should be given more weight than millions of people who live in major metropolitan areas, just because.
Yes, but this nation has always emphasised the importance of local governance, even over federal in most cases, as enumerated in the 10th amendment.
I said something related in another thread:
Quote:
It seems to me that most of the current resistance, from rural residents against urbanites, comes from the amount of disagreeable legislation that a city or cities in a state continually push on the entire state.
Policies and regulations enforced at the point of a gun in rural communities, that are only supported by, or applicable in the urbanite's own small, high population area.
This actually plays out similarly on the national scale as well.
Without an electoral college system, CA can choose ALL the presidents.
Actually CA, NY, Chicago, and the southern border cities
Something for the electoral college deniers to consider... on a statewide basis, it is a popular vote that gets the states electoral votes.
Illinois democrats won 11 out of 102 counties in the state - but because of the popular vote, they got the electors. That as far as we need to go with regards to a true democracy.
So he's the president of the heartland! Good for them.
Can we select one for our part of the country?
Exactly! Especially in NY where we know Trump the swindler and bloviated brat from way back. These small town folks were introduced to a mind-numbing reality show and a HUGE turd sitting behind a big desk and decided that he had the credentials. Idicoracy has arrived and we have a Duck Dynasty presidency.
Kind of. It's saying that the value of your individual vote varies based on where you live. All votes are not equal.
Very interesting explanation. Those that combine into large tightly quartered groups lessen the power of their vote by doing so. While those that remain more autonomous or individualized, retain more voting power. I have never actually thought to phrase it that way.
Exactly! Especially in NY where we know Trump the swindler and bloviated brat from way back. These small town folks were introduced to a mind-numbing reality show and a HUGE turd sitting behind a big desk and decided that he had the credentials. Idicoracy has arrived and we have a Duck Dynasty presidency.
Exactly! Especially in NY where we know Trump the swindler and bloviated brat from way back. These small town folks were introduced to a mind-numbing reality show and a HUGE turd sitting behind a big desk and decided that he had the credentials. Idicoracy has arrived and we have a Duck Dynasty presidency.
Look at it this way; there is no telling what he will actually do, so he may go back to his NY roots.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
