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 should be accessible in accordance with the laws of your state, as determined by the voters and their representative. Representative that do not comply with the will of the people should be voted out of office and replaced by representatives who do.
You would think that peolpe who can so clearly see the evil of slavery, cannot see the evil of murdering unborn babies. It baffles me to no end, when I can clearly see the evil in both.
Then why are so many States afraid to put it to a vote? Perhaps they know that the majority support a Orion within reasonable limits (and no 6 weeks is not reasonable).
Except that oftentimes during elections, some states gets tons of visits by the candidates. You know the swing states. States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and now Arizona get the candidates' attention and they go to them, seemingly avoiding other states like South Dakota. I have no flipping idea why Obama or even Romney traveled to South Dakota during their 2012 campaigns.
As for 2016, Hillary's travels were a problem. That said I think many voters thought she was inevitably going to be elected president so many voters chose to stay home. Few expected Trump to actually win. I don't even think Trump himself did. Many people think that Trump ran knewing he would lose to cause problems and say the system was rigged.
True, swing states get more visits. Solid states get fewer. People focus the attention where they have to , which under direct vote means large urban areas, which ultimately means policies follow what large urban areas want . Want to steal the water from a lake in a smaller pop area to serve a large urban area because they need the water? No problem, we will write you a law making that legal. Who cares that the smaller areas will protest, they dont have enough votes to matter. No thanks, to that sort of system.
Obama and Romney were in SD right before the election because polls showed the race tight and EVERY state counted. Which is the point of the EC. HC, on the other hand, decided she didnt need the small states, and decided also she could ignore states she thought were solid blue. That will be the pattern under a direct popular vote. Appeal to the big cities, ignore the smaller pops and rural areas. HC has already given you a preview of politics under a direct vote. Again,no thanks. The EC serves a purpose in making every state count. Its understandable that the half of the country that would benefit from direct vote are upset that the system was set up to deny them the ability to ignore rural and small pop areas, but this anger just shows the logic of the FF in doing so.
Some people who support a direct vote seem to think this is the norm and the US is an outlier who has a weird election process. Not so. Most of the first world countries, all those countries liberals love to compare us to, do not elect the president or PM directly. Canada? Nope. The UK? Nope. Well certainly the Nordic states? No, not Norway,Sweden,Finland or Denmark. Also not Switzerland. Or Australia. Or NZ.Or India .
So who does then? Mexico. Most of Central America and South America. Parts of Africa. All great models to follow , no doubt .
France does also, I think. So in first world countries , 1 out of 10 or 15 elect by direct vote.
Last edited by NatesDude; 12-04-2022 at 07:23 AM..
One objection to your suggestion that persons of different persuasion self-segregate to be with their creedal brethren, is gradations of belief. To illustrate this, I'll run with your example. My own belief is that abortion should be legal not only fully through the third trimester, but that upon actual birth, the baby - that is, the thing that was just born - can at the discretion of its parents be euthanized, should they choose to do so, no questions asked.
My view, as doubtless you'll be quick to confirm, is rare and fringe even among the American "left". It's such an extreme that most "pro choice" people would quickly mumble something to the effect that no, they're not my fellow-travelers at all.
Indeed, my quiver of views can be dubbed "pro death". Strongly pro-gun, pro capital punishment, pro suicide (assisted or solitary), pro euthanasia, and generally opposed to the great and prodigious efforts to which the medical establishment goes to prolong life or to reverse the ravages of serious disease. I support the full legalization of hard drugs, and the cutting of municipal budgets for paramedics or emergency services. As some of my views are hard-left, and others hard-right, pray tell: where is my tribe? Where could I possibly move, to seek convivial affinity with my fellows?
Where is your tribe?
Maybe China or some island somewhere far away.
Even the most left people I know are not for killing a baby who has already been born.
Oh and I appreciate your input. It confirms abortion has nothing to do with "my body my choice" nonsense and instead is about the ability to kill another human life legally. You just made that point by stating people should be able to kill innocent defenseless babies AFTER they have been born and are no longer inside the mother...no longer part of the mother's body. A completely separate life and you still want to kill it.
Last edited by Stephan A Smith; 12-04-2022 at 08:45 AM..
Reason: Added Comment
True, swing states get more visits. Solid states get fewer. People focus the attention where they have to , which under direct vote means large urban areas, which ultimately means policies follow what large urban areas want . Want to steal the water from a lake in a smaller pop area to serve a large urban area because they need the water? No problem, we will write you a law making that legal. Who cares that the smaller areas will protest, they dont have enough votes to matter. No thanks, to that sort of system.
Obama and Romney were in SD right before the election because polls showed the race tight and EVERY state counted. Which is the point of the EC. HC, on the other hand, decided she didnt need the small states, and decided also she could ignore states she thought were solid blue. That will be the pattern under a direct popular vote. Appeal to the big cities, ignore the smaller pops and rural areas. HC has already given you a preview of politics under a direct vote. Again,no thanks. The EC serves a purpose in making every state count. Its understandable that the half of the country that would benefit from direct vote are upset that the system was set up to deny them the ability to ignore rural and small pop areas, but this anger just shows the logic of the FF in doing so.
Some people who support a direct vote seem to think this is the norm and the US is an outlier who has a weird election process. Not so. Most of the first world countries, all those countries liberals love to compare us to, do not elect the president or PM directly. Canada? Nope. The UK? Nope. Well certainly the Nordic states? No, not Norway,Sweden,Finland or Denmark. Also not Switzerland. Or Australia. Or NZ.Or India .
So who does then? Mexico. Most of Central America and South America. Parts of Africa. All great models to follow , no doubt .
France does also, I think. So in first world countries , 1 out of 10 or 15 elect by direct vote.
I personally think the Electoral College is arcane. It was a great idea for a time we didn't have the coasts. That said, it caused trouble in a number of elections. 1824, 1860, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016 and again in 2020 (but not for the reasons of past elections.) Most of the ones I listed (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016), were due to the popular vote not giving the same result as the Electoral College installed POTUS. All but Bush did not get a second term as president with Hayes not even seeking a second term. 1860, I listed due to it being argued that had the Democratic Party not split the ticket to the Northern and Southern Democrats, he could have lost. 2020's controversies was due to the election misinformation and Congressional counting of electors that was mired in the January 6th riots.
In three out of the last six Presidential elections, we saw issues with the Electoral College. And not just with the attention of swing states or close races while ignoring the rest of us. The 2000 and 2016 Electoral College worked, but we had issues of the popular votes not reflecting the college results. What I think was worse was 2020. What we saw was due to election misinformation and a lot of innuendo and allegations of fraud, enough Republicans sought to block the Counting of Electors and challenge them for a number of the swing states Trump lost. Mind you, in court, none of the cases passed initial hearing due to lack of standing and/or lack of evidence. Then on top of it, you had the terrorist act of the insurrection happen. This right here, exposes a major flaw with our current system.
Most countries follow parliamentary governments. Any country with a Prime Minister follows this like England, Canada even Israel (though they call their president.) That said, I don't think that is an ideal system for an area as vast as the United States. Remember, the larger US states are the size of good-sized European countries. The countries have parliamentary governments with a much smaller land area. Except Canada which we could possibly compare to. That said, the territories (Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest) only have 1 Canadian senator and House of Commons member each compared to at least 4 for each Canadian province (their and most of the world's equivalence to states.) So if you live in a territory, you would then have one voice in the Senate vote and one House of Commons vote. Ontario is the most due being the most populated province.
Now if we apply this to the US, we have several states in the spot of the territories should we go to a parliamentary system to decide our president. These states include Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. They get two Senators and a single Representative to the House. Unlike Canada, territories do not get votes and instead are given delegates in the House of Representatives and nothing in the Senate, nor can vote for President. This disqualifies it as well.
I think that due to the issues from the 2020 and potentially 2024 United States Presidential Elections due to Trump claiming fraud because his ego cannot wrap his head around losing, I think it is high time we change it. Instead, we should switch to a popular vote. Yes, it means we travel to metro areas. But in a way, Presidents already do with a number of their rallies anyway. They just go to the metropolitan areas of a swing state. We have no problem with that. Now yes, this means New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and maybe Detroit will get the lion's share of attention, but it removes the chaos we saw with the 2020 Counting of Electors and the potential for a repeat in 2024 (if Trump wins the Republican nomination or runs third party.)
I personally think the Electoral College is arcane. It was a great idea for a time we didn't have the coasts. That said, it caused trouble in a number of elections. 1824, 1860, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016 and again in 2020 (but not for the reasons of past elections.) Most of the ones I listed (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016), were due to the popular vote not giving the same result as the Electoral College installed POTUS. All but Bush did not get a second term as president with Hayes not even seeking a second term. 1860, I listed due to it being argued that had the Democratic Party not split the ticket to the Northern and Southern Democrats, he could have lost. 2020's controversies was due to the election misinformation and Congressional counting of electors that was mired in the January 6th riots.
In three out of the last six Presidential elections, we saw issues with the Electoral College. And not just with the attention of swing states or close races while ignoring the rest of us. The 2000 and 2016 Electoral College worked, but we had issues of the popular votes not reflecting the college results. What I think was worse was 2020. What we saw was due to election misinformation and a lot of innuendo and allegations of fraud, enough Republicans sought to block the Counting of Electors and challenge them for a number of the swing states Trump lost. Mind you, in court, none of the cases passed initial hearing due to lack of standing and/or lack of evidence. Then on top of it, you had the terrorist act of the insurrection happen. This right here, exposes a major flaw with our current system.
Most countries follow parliamentary governments. Any country with a Prime Minister follows this like England, Canada even Israel (though they call their president.) That said, I don't think that is an ideal system for an area as vast as the United States. Remember, the larger US states are the size of good-sized European countries. The countries have parliamentary governments with a much smaller land area. Except Canada which we could possibly compare to. That said, the territories (Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest) only have 1 Canadian senator and House of Commons member each compared to at least 4 for each Canadian province (their and most of the world's equivalence to states.) So if you live in a territory, you would then have one voice in the Senate vote and one House of Commons vote. Ontario is the most due being the most populated province.
Now if we apply this to the US, we have several states in the spot of the territories should we go to a parliamentary system to decide our president. These states include Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. They get two Senators and a single Representative to the House. Unlike Canada, territories do not get votes and instead are given delegates in the House of Representatives and nothing in the Senate, nor can vote for President. This disqualifies it as well.
I think that due to the issues from the 2020 and potentially 2024 United States Presidential Elections due to Trump claiming fraud because his ego cannot wrap his head around losing, I think it is high time we change it. Instead, we should switch to a popular vote. Yes, it means we travel to metro areas. But in a way, Presidents already do with a number of their rallies anyway. They just go to the metropolitan areas of a swing state. We have no problem with that. Now yes, this means New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and maybe Detroit will get the lion's share of attention, but it removes the chaos we saw with the 2020 Counting of Electors and the potential for a repeat in 2024 (if Trump wins the Republican nomination or runs third party.)
The fact that we had a childish loser who incited a riot on 1/6 is no reason to abandon the system at all. Trump is a one off idiot who will go away either in 2024, or if he somehow wins, in 2028 as a two termer who cant run again. No need to rework an entire electoral process for one idiot.
Elections that result in the higher pop voter getter not winning the EC is sort of the point of the EC though. People wish to get rid of it due to one of the very reasons it exists*.That makes no sense. "Hey, these stupid 20MPH zones in schools make me late for work every day. We need to get rid of them so I can drive 60 MPH down the street and get to work faster !" Uh, no. The EC is a balance between urban and rural areas . Thats the point, the urban areas cant dominate and politicians cant ignore rural areas. That it accomplishes this and makes those who would benefit from its elimination angry that they cant dominate by numbers simply show the wisdom of it. It exists for the same reason the Senate exists and provides 2 Sen for RI and 2 for TX, despite the population difference.
Again, the solution for those not winning enough EC votes is simple. Appeal to ALL the country. Or at least the swing states. Its far easier to pay attention to and address the needs of 7 to 10 swing states than attempting to pass a constitutional amendment that requires 2/3 of Congress to even reach the states to vote on, and then requires ratification from 38 states if it ever gets out of Congress. Which it won't in a House and Senate that is basically 50-50 in each .
Simply pay attention to all the country, and quit ignoring " flyover" country . Not that difficult .
* Interestingly, one of the other reasons for the EC and actual EC delegates that have to go vote, instead of just giving pure numbers to the candidates on election night, is that it was conceived as a last ditch measure to prevent idiots or other obviously unqualified people from winning. If Trump, for example, was shown between election night and the EC vote day to have been an agent of Putin and Russia who would do harm to the US, his electors could use that info and decide not to vote for him, instead casting their votes for someone else. Some states now have laws that prevent electors from deserting their candidate, but originally one reason was this last line of defense against an undesirable winner .
Last edited by NatesDude; 12-04-2022 at 11:38 AM..
When you look at the latest congressional races, we see the overwhelming majority of land in America is home to Republicans or Conservatives. A very small percentage of the land mass is Democrat or Liberal. Democrats and Liberals can and often do control things nationally, as the highest population areas are mainly in the BLUE areas.
Land mass and population are two different things. Land mass doesn't vote, PEOPLE VOTE.
Quote:
What this has brought us in this country is basically a bifurcated country. It's very simple to understand.
This country was always bifurcated. America has always had divisions. America has long had political divisions. Racial division has been a fact of life in America. The Civil War almost tore the USA apart. The North vs the South. Kansas had outbreaks of violence just before its own statehood over the issue of slavery. Bleeding Kansas. Pro-slavery forces and abolitionists were at war on trying to bring Kansas in as a free state or a slave state.
Quote:
The needs, wants and requirements for the RED areas are not at all the same as the BLUE areas.
The needs, wants and requirements for the BLUE areas are not at all the same as the RED areas.
It goes beyond that. As someone who views the USA through history and geography, this is why I have to critique your post. This is not just about the needs of the red areas vs the blue areas. It isn't only the urban vs rural. In some cases, that line is more blurred than you realize. It's the suburban dweller vs the rural dweller. It's the urban dweller vs the suburban dweller. In alot of cities, it's the needs of one's racial/ethnic group versus the needs of another. The needs of the college students vs the "townies".
Idaho is basically a red state. However. it's a state that had its own divisions. Before the migration of California conservatives, it worked like this. Northern Idaho was more Democratic. It was a mining and logging region. Southern Idaho was more farming. There is also a sizable Mormon population (some Mormons went to southern Idaho not knowing it was Idaho).
Mississippi is a very good example of division. It's a red state. No Democratic President has won Mississippi in over 4 decades. The last Democrat to win Mississippi was Carter, in 1976. Trump won Mississippi at a tune of 57%. However, this state has a few blurred lines Alot of rural areas, but not all of those rural areas are Republican. Go look at the Mississippi Delta region. A rural, agricultural region in western Mississippi. Democrats have been winning those counties since the mid 1980s. Why? Because this region is a majority-Black region. Blacks are 37% of Mississippi's population. 1/3 of the state's Black population lives in the Delta region. Many people don't think about this, but there are several predominantly Black rural areas, mostly in the South. The Mississippi Delta is one example. Politically, the Delta region differs sharply from the rest of the state. Predominantly White areas of Mississippi vote Republican. Not even Lafayette County supports Democrats in Presidential elections. I bring up Lafayette County because it's home to Oxford, MS. It's a college town, home to Ole Miss. It's one of the few college-dominated counties in America that supports Republicans.
Quote:
There is no workable one sized solution for the country, even though the left continues to try to force it down everyone's throats.
If you want to go down that route, you could expand this to be within states. I live in the South and we have some bifurcation of our own. Go look at Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, etc. Go look at Arkansas. You claim this is just a "leftist" problem. We have plenty of right-wing politicians trying to push their vision on those who don't want it.
Quote:
Both sides are so far apart at this point and those on the left in positions of power will not stop demonizing those on the right, there simply is no path forward anymore.
It isn't just the left and the right. It's the cities vs the suburbs vs the rural areas. It's the tech workers vs the blue collar workers. It's Black vs Hispanic vs White, etc.
Quote:
We are two completely different countries located within the same borders. We have almost nothing in common. We think differently and at this point, have no respect for each other.
It's over folks. Stick a fork in America. The dream is dead.
Land mass and population are two different things. Land mass doesn't vote, PEOPLE VOTE.
See post #72. This thread was not about how to win elections or the popular vote. It's about the differences in values, issues, concerns, wants, needs and requirements for different areas of the country and the people who live there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan A Smith
Well for the 3,937,269th time, this thread is not about how to win elections.
It's not about voting.
It's about how the needs, wants and desires of rural America are completely different than those in urban America and how one side keeps trying to force what they want onto the rest of us who just want to be left alone.
It's about how we can never see unity and compromise again, because we are too far apart.
But if it makes you and a couple others feel better to avoid the actual topic and instead talk about how to win elections, carry on. It's not what this thread is about, but obviously you and a couple others prefer derailing the topic and turning it into something different. Not much I can do about that. You seem to have your mind made up.
See post #72. This thread was not about how to win elections or the popular vote. It's about the differences in values, issues, concerns, wants, needs and requirements for different areas of the country and the people who live there.
I noticed you ignored the rest of my post, which would further illustrate what I'm talking about.
I noticed you ignored the rest of my post, which would further illustrate what I'm talking about.
I stopped reading once you made a statement which had nothing to do with this thread at all.
If people can't take the time to read what the thread is about, I'm not going to waste my time responding to whatever else they are posting. I mean I've had to straighten people out on the same point several times now.
People seem to like to derail threads, rather than discuss the actual topics.
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.
.
