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.
A union of 50 states must provide a voice for every state and all the people.
Please! Every state has two Senators and at least one Congressperson. No one is being left out here. In the matter of Presidential elections, however, the big states and all the people who live within them are being screwed. Their votes are given a lower weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
You can't have one state or a few populous states dominating because of outsized population...
The Senate is already weighted in the opposite direction, but there is no reason at all why the election of Presidents should be as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
...or the other states will eventually secede, and rightly so.
Once you have joined the union, there is no right to secede. The only way out is to obtain the kind permission of those you would wish to leave behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
So absolute numbers don't matter in our system.
Correction -- they DO matter and in an absolute manner EVERYWHERE but in this one particular instance that may well soon be updated.
Please! Every state has two Senators and at least one Congressperson. No one is being left out here. In the matter of Presidential elections, however, the big states and all the people who live within them are being screwed. Their votes are given a lower weight.
The Senate is already weighted in the opposite direction, but there is no reason at all why the election of Presidents should be as well.
Once you have joined the union, there is no right to secede. The only way out is to obtain the kind permission of those you would wish to leave behind.
Correction -- they DO matter and in an absolute manner EVERYWHERE but in this one particular instance that may well soon be updated.
Again, where were the protests 2 weeks ago when you were ABSOLUTELY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY CERTAIN that Hillary's ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAP was a guarantee of victory?
THERE WERE NO PROTESTS. Because y'all would have been absolutely fine and peachy if the Vapid Biddy had won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Fine. Peachy. No problemo if the correct and predicted result had happened. Y'all didn't give a rat's azz about the Electoral College.
The BLUE MAP didn't bother you. But a RED MAP means we have to dismantle the system that has worked well for our entire history. And will continue to work well.
So now that the unthinkable has happened, we have to get rid of the electoral college? Because the results went against you? No, not going to happen. Sorry.
Let's call in the ponies for petting. Let's order cases of Play-Doh for the social justice snowflakes... The Electoral College will stay, so let's just furnish the cry-in rooms and repaint the safe spaces. We will need them for the next election.
i saw an article where they tally the vote by counties. Trump had like 3068 counties in United states. Hillary won 58 counties, but those 58 counties had more population than the other 3068 total. so this is why we need the electrory college. when 50 county can have the say so over 90 % of the land mass
Again, where were the protests 2 weeks ago when you were ABSOLUTELY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY CERTAIN that Hillary's ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAP was a guarantee of victory?
THERE WERE NO PROTESTS. Because y'all would have been absolutely fine and peachy if the Vapid Biddy had won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Fine. Peachy. No problemo if the correct and predicted result had happened. Y'all didn't give a rat's azz about the Electoral College.
The BLUE MAP didn't bother you. But a RED MAP means we have to dismantle the system that has worked well for our entire history. And will continue to work well.
So now that the unthinkable has happened, we have to get rid of the electoral college? Because the results went against you? No, not going to happen. Sorry.
Let's call in the ponies for petting. Let's order cases of Play-Doh for the social justice snowflakes... The Electoral College will stay, so let's just furnish the cry-in rooms and repaint the safe spaces. We will need them for the next election.
A state can secced they just have to build up a large enough national guard and tell the fed govt that its going to cost them a lot of lives in order to fight to keep that state and let the feds decide if they want to engage in a full scale military action to keep a state. If the state can demonstrate that they can make it REALLY expensive for the fed govt they will likely stand down and let the state go, plus if said state has ports or other strategic geographic properties they will want to maintain good relations with this new country.
The issue is that state would have to invest heavily in modernizing its national guard and then cut off funding to the IRS and convert the fed tax into a state tax to continue building a war machine. This state would likely have to have some significant forign support as well but its not impossible if the feds and liberals start sucking too much blood some states may get fed up with it.
Of course the feds will probably just pay off the governor of that state and maybe a few state senators and that will be that.
Again, where were the protests 2 weeks ago when you were ABSOLUTELY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY CERTAIN that Hillary's ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAP was a guarantee of victory?
THERE WERE NO PROTESTS. Because y'all would have been absolutely fine and peachy if the Vapid Biddy had won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Fine. Peachy. No problemo if the correct and predicted result had happened. Y'all didn't give a rat's azz about the Electoral College.
The BLUE MAP didn't bother you. But a RED MAP means we have to dismantle the system that has worked well for our entire history. And will continue to work well.
So now that the unthinkable has happened, we have to get rid of the electoral college? Because the results went against you? No, not going to happen. Sorry.
Let's call in the ponies for petting. Let's order cases of Play-Doh for the social justice snowflakes... The Electoral College will stay, so let's just furnish the cry-in rooms and repaint the safe spaces. We will need them for the next election.
Its not just the 2016 election. In 2000, the same thing happened. Al Gore had 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush and lost. That's two out of the last five presidential elections, or 40% of the time that the electoral vote winner was not the popular vote winner. At some point, you have to admit a system is broken and fix it. Unless, of course, you like the results and you think a popular minority ought to be running the country.
This isn't whining. Its identifying a genuine fault in the political system that should have been fixed years ago. It doesn't get fixed because amending the Constitution is practically impossible.
I think the next move for those who don't like the electoral college is to seek an interstate compact with states have 270 electoral votes or more. The compact would be that all states agree their electoral votes shall be cast for the candidate that has the most popular votes. This idea might actually work although it will take time. Its the direction we should move in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg
i saw an article where they tally the vote by counties. Trump had like 3068 counties in United states. Hillary won 58 counties, but those 58 counties had more population than the other 3068 total. so this is why we need the electrory college. when 50 county can have the say so over 90 % of the land mass
When was the last time, you saw a land mass get up and vote? It doesn't. The people in that land mass do the voting. Your argument is a tired suggestion that a small group of people should be able to rule over a large group of people. Its the antithesis of majority rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
A state can secced they just have to build up a large enough national guard and tell the fed govt that its going to cost them a lot of lives in order to fight to keep that state and let the feds decide if they want to engage in a full scale military action to keep a state. If the state can demonstrate that they can make it REALLY expensive for the fed govt they will likely stand down and let the state go, plus if said state has ports or other strategic geographic properties they will want to maintain good relations with this new country.
The issue is that state would have to invest heavily in modernizing its national guard and then cut off funding to the IRS and convert the fed tax into a state tax to continue building a war machine. This state would likely have to have some significant forign support as well but its not impossible if the feds and liberals start sucking too much blood some states may get fed up with it.
Of course the feds will probably just pay off the governor of that state and maybe a few state senators and that will be that.
Believe me, after the Civil War, no state will try to secede again. They can't.
A lot of people really seem to think that land mass rightly has more political power than people. Because being from a city disqualifies your vote, apparently. We might as well bring back property qualifications.
Or perhaps I should ask the people up in Nunavut how Canada should be run, because their opinion is much more important than the people in Toronto.
If the ENTIRE population of California and New York voted 100% one way, which they don't, that would not be enough to swing a national election. Not nearly enough. As Donald Trump himself tweeted, we don't know how a popular vote election would go because we don't actually run a campaign based on it. Trump would have campaigned more in California, Texas, New York and Florida if the popular vote mattered. So would Clinton.
We run "national" campaigns in about 15 states, which is not national at all.
Will someone please cite me an actual historical example of how the electoral college protected rural interests in the U.S. Please. Which president was the rural champion?
As far as I can tell, the electoral college does not do anything it was supposed to. What it does do, is make national elections in reality a contest in about 12-15 states, and it shuts out smaller parties completely out of the process, creating a 2-party hegemony. That seems to the practical, real effect.
Last edited by redguard57; 11-21-2016 at 08:31 PM..
Its not just the 2016 election. In 2000, the same thing happened. Al Gore had 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush and lost. That's two out of the last five presidential elections, or 40% of the time that the electoral vote winner was not the popular vote winner. At some point, you have to admit a system is broken and fix it. Unless, of course, you like the results and you think a popular minority ought to be running the country.
How many times do I need to repeat that if the elections were fought under different rules the campaigns would be handled differently. Trump made no effort to get popular votes in states like New York, California or Massachusetts since getting the state was impossible. He could easily have picked up the needed votes in those states if it were a popular vote election.
A state can secced (did you mean secede?) they just have to build up a large enough national guard and tell the fed govt that its going to cost them a lot of lives in order to fight to keep that state and let the feds decide if they want to engage in a full scale military action to keep a state. If the state can demonstrate that they can make it REALLY expensive for the fed govt they will likely stand down and let the state go, plus if said state has ports or other strategic geographic properties they will want to maintain good relations with this new country.
The issue is that state would have to invest heavily in modernizing its national guard and then cut off funding to the IRS and convert the fed tax into a state tax to continue building a war machine. This state would likely have to have some significant forign support as well but its not impossible if the feds and liberals start sucking too much blood some states may get fed up with it.
Of course the feds will probably just pay off the governor of that state and maybe a few state senators and that will be that.
This kind of a seditious post belies reality. Ask Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee how that worked out.
How many times do I need to repeat that if the elections were fought under different rules the campaigns would be handled differently. Trump made no effort to get popular votes in states like New York, California or Massachusetts since getting the state was impossible. He could easily have picked up the needed votes in those states if it were a popular vote election.
My point is Trump still would have lost the popular vote. So would hsve Bush.
My point is Trump still would have lost the popular vote. So would hsve Bush.
My point is that if Trump had campaigned in California's Orange County and other suburban areas around San Fransisco and Los Angeles, and the Inland Kingdom, for example, he may have picked up a good chunk of what I estimate to be a 2,000,000 deficit in popular votes. Others may have come from suburban New York City area, including large chunks of safely Democratic states such as New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. He had no reason to seek those votes, certainly not to make people on message boards happy.
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.
