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.
I'm sorry but there is NO way to logically defend the Electoral College when it throws away 2.5 million votes.
Mr. Sulu - California gets more electoral votes than any other state - not devalued at all. It's totally blue and your vote counted toward those 55 electoral votes. Oh my, you and the Flying Nun do count, you really do.
That's why it's amusing to me when you see the anti-lib crowd on here supporting California's secession. Like...you do realize how bad that would be for the other states right? Smh...
Anyway, for all those folks who keep saying the electoral college doesn't devalue CA and NY votes...it does! The Electoral College values a Californian as 3.8 Wyomingans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
If we're talking about injustice against the popular vote, then the Senate is a far greater offense than the Electoral College. The 580,000 people of Wyoming wield just as much power via the Senate as the 38 million people of California. The real reason that the EC is getting all the press and not the Senate comes down to folks like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore winning the popular vote but losing the election. It offers up a clear focus for outrage. .
This is actually a really good point, it's interesting that you don't really see it made often, on these boards or in the press. 100% agree.
Elliot, when that 24/7/365 Conga line of trucks on I-80 arrives in San Francisco and then turns around and heads back to NYC who is the beneficiary of that road in that case? Certainly it's not Nebraska with 455 miles of it.
While I wouldn't mind, I think a lot of seniors would be outraged.
Nice try, but you failed (as usual). Seniors who were working and paying taxes presumably would have already voted for policies they supported. In other words, you're acting like they just magically appeared out of nowhere as people who don't pay taxes in retirement. The only seniors who would not get a chance to determine how they wanted things to be are the ones who, when they were younger, also didn't work or pay taxes. And why should they get any say, as you say?
I think Counties that provide the most food crops get the most vote. Maybe those oil counties get even more.
Ever see the old bumper sticker "Starve and freeze a Yankee" ?
Counties can sell their crops see who buys them. Suburbs have gardens and urban chicken coops are common. Counties can choose to compete for the urban food dollar or not.
Nice try, but you failed (as usual). Seniors who were working and paying taxes presumably would have already voted for policies they supported. In other words, you're acting like they just magically appeared out of nowhere as people who don't pay taxes in retirement. The only seniors who would not get a chance to determine how they wanted things to be are the ones who, when they were younger, also didn't work or pay taxes. And why should they get any say, as you say?
Are you saying a person's vote is based on their lifelong combined income? Not annual? Still fine with me, just looking for clarification here. Are you saying a senior that has a lifelong combined income would get a commiserate vote value or are you saying it's okay if seniors no longer can vote because they would have already had a chance to vote for the policies they support when they worked?
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.