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.
Ok...then you explain what and who he meant with the whole thing about manufacturing votes in the "urban centers" comment. Which people in the urban centers?
You Repubs think that folks can't read between the lines at these comments? Gimme a break.
I don't know what's in between the lines on your screen; on mine it's empty space. I live in King County, WA. In 2004, we had a very close election for governor--the final tally had the Democrat winning by only 129 votes. The Republican won the first two counts and the Democrat won the last, which included over 50,000 'enhanced' ballots from heavily Democratic King County (cty where Seattle lies).
These 'enhanced' ballots were ballots that were wrongly filled out, one way or another, and thus rejected by machines. They were looked at by hand to see if voter intent could be divined.
King Cty, as it happens, is overwhelmingly white, with only a black pop of 6.2 pct. The overall rate in the US is 12.6, or more than double.
The poster you quoted could have very easily had King Cty in mind when he/she made that comment. What is your evidence for thinking that (s)he's a racist? Past posting history??? Anything???
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MORebelWoman
No, I am convinced it would be bad for the whole country. This really has nothing to do with liberals or progressives or conservatives.
WHY?
What makes one man/one vote bad? Just what is intrinsically bad with having one person's vote the equal of any other person's? What does it have to do with>
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
It would be bad for the country.
Why do we have elections? What is the point? It's not just to elect someone into office. Aren't elections about the people getting a say in what their government does? About getting to know a candidate, qualifying that candidate, but also about telling that candidate what the people want?
Aren't elections also about every voter having an equal say in the outcome? Wht would that be bad for the country?
Aren't elections also about every voter having an equal say in the outcome? Wht would that be bad for the country?
I can't even believe you have to ask. How do you think all these theocracies and tyrants get into power? From one-man one-vote, mob rules ideology. Elections can be rigged and influenced much easier this way.
Voter apathy in large metropolises is appaling. As high as 50% in some areas. Rural areas have a more than even chance of influencing outcomes. I doubt Bush II got re-elected by the undue influence of urban centers on the popular vote.
I don't know what's in between the lines on your screen; on mine it's empty space. I live in King County, WA. In 2004, we had a very close election for governor--the final tally had the Democrat winning by only 129 votes. The Republican won the first two counts and the Democrat won the last, which included over 50,000 'enhanced' ballots from heavily Democratic King County (cty where Seattle lies).
These 'enhanced' ballots were ballots that were wrongly filled out, one way or another, and thus rejected by machines. They were looked at by hand to see if voter intent could be divined.
King Cty, as it happens, is overwhelmingly white, with only a black pop of 6.2 pct. The overall rate in the US is 12.6, or more than double.
The poster you quoted could have very easily had King Cty in mind when he/she made that comment. What is your evidence for thinking that (s)he's a racist? Past posting history??? Anything???
Nah...i can tell you for damn sure that they didn't have King City in mind, and you know they didn't either.
Again, i know and you know what was meant. Detroit, Cleveland, St Louis, Atlanta, Miami, etc....
That's what the poster had in mind. And no...the space between the lines is NEVER empty when talking to right wingers.
Point taken. But my main concern is the fact that if popular vote took over then only a few states would control the whole country, like New York, California, Texas and Florida. That would be absolutely catastrophic, in my opinion anyway.
Personally, I don't like the Republicans either, as they and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin.
Currently only a few states control the selection of the president: states like Pennslyvania, Ohio, Florida, etc. Shouldn't Americans in other states get a vote too?
Aren't elections also about every voter having an equal say in the outcome? Wht would that be bad for the country?
There's no such thing as "equal" say. The majority's votes count, the losing votes don't. There are winners and there are losers.
What makes National Popular Vote bad for the country is that it locks in who the winners will be. The people who live in the most urban parts of the country. Every election. Every time. From now into the future.
And that's bad for the country because it makes rural voters irrelevant. Which means that their voice in determining the course of our nation is silenced. Rural voters are already at a disadvantage in Congress. And they are disadvantaged by the Presidential election process, but the electoral college gives them a chance to be heard. National Popular Vote doesn't. And when they don't have a chance to be heard, they aren't part of the conversation.
I know that people think the South seceded because of slavery. And that was certainly a part of the issue. But Lincoln's election was also a demonstration of the irrelevance of the rural South when selecting a President. And irrelevance in that venue mirrors irrelevance in the national legislature. And people don't like to be governed by a government that doesn't represent them, where they are irrelevant. I'm mindful that this is alarmist, and can be read as an overreaction. But civil wars aren't about issues as much as they are about power. Strip rural areas of their voice in government, and you are stripping them of whatever minimal power they have. And then they have nothing to lose.
Besides Mr McConnell's well-founded concerns about endless recounts disrupting any administration's taking office, the problems are even deeper than that. Too many Americans feel disenfranchised by the system we have in place. They are frustrated, and the approval ratings for our government continue to plummet. Because Americans and the federal government are disconnected. A representative can't represent the number of people he's supposed to. People get canned responses to their letters and phone calls. Town meetings get hi-jacked by organized political groups with agendas. Lobbyists have too much influence.
The problem is the cap we've placed on the number of Representatives. If we want a more responsive government, then we have to fix the real problem. And the electoral college is not the problem.
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.
