Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:38 AM
 
19,449 posts, read 12,092,063 times
Reputation: 26193

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by warhorse78 View Post
But how much you make annually? In socialist countries/states, you usually have to have a high paying job to afford all of those, and that's great for you that you can grow your own produce without permission, whereas here in the US, many of the democrat controlled cities and states are making it illegal to collect rain water and grow edible gardens on your land. Oregon is one of the worst states in regards to that.
You can't have a vegetable garden in Oregon?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:41 AM
 
11,404 posts, read 4,057,116 times
Reputation: 7852
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
actually just UNDER 3 million...2.9 million


and hitler got 4.3 million more votes from California...


that said..if not for California , trump would have had the popular vote too


Trump won 31 states to hitlery's 19 states
Yes, Trump dominated Hillary with states won. But again, in a popular vote, that means nothing and Hillary wins pretty easily.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Cali
14,136 posts, read 4,513,676 times
Reputation: 8232
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
It's interesting. One of the reasons we have an electoral college was the founding fathers feared a tyrant could manipulate the views of the masses, whereas representatives gathered to vote would vote their conscience, not the will of their constituents in the case a nut job was running.

Boy. The irony drips. The EC didn't stave this off as planned. In fact, the EC caused the exact opposite to occur.
I think the biggest reason was our founding fathers did not trust the opinions from the masses/public.


Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought most Americans supported slavery and Jim Crow laws back in the days, no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,432,455 times
Reputation: 24780
Thumbs up Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

Long overdue.

Whoever gets the most votes, wins.

Just like every other election for every other office.

The EC is a bad 18th century idea that's way out of step.

Epic failure.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:46 AM
 
8,430 posts, read 4,480,747 times
Reputation: 9635
Th electoral college was a nice idea back in the 1700's but its intent was not to deny the will of the people. It is not good for the nation to have had the presidency awarded twice in the last five elections to the person that finished 2nd in the popular vote. It is time for it to go. It will however take years for it to be changed given the many obstacles it will have to overcome. Would be nice to see it for the 2024 election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
30,011 posts, read 18,849,267 times
Reputation: 25956
I hope the Demonics focus exclusively on impeaching 45 and changing the electoral college...these are the things they can do to best serve our nation.

In the case of the electoral college change, completely spinning their wheels. In the case of impeaching 45, that would ensure our Great President's re-election...so please please please Demonics, focus only on these 2 things.!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
6,830 posts, read 3,198,064 times
Reputation: 11571
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
You can't have a vegetable garden in Oregon?

Yes you can have a vegetable garden in Oregon, and yes you can collect rainwater.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
16,398 posts, read 10,434,349 times
Reputation: 36232
The fairest mechanism for dealing with this issue, while still remaining true to our nation's structure as a federal republic, would be to award the electoral votes within each state according to the winner in each congressional district (since the House of Representatives represent people) and award the two senatorial electoral votes according to the overall statewide winner (since the Senate represents states).

In California, Hillary Clinton won 46 of the state's 53 congressional districts, as well as the overall statewide vote. Thus, she should have received 48 of the state's 55 electoral votes while Trump should have received the remaining 7.

In Texas, Donald Trump won 22 of the state's 36 congressional districts, as well as the overall statewide vote. Thus, he should have received 24 of the state's 38 electoral votes while Clinton should have received the remaining 14.

On a nationwide basis, Trump won 230 congressional districts to Clinton's 205. Trump won 30 states while Clinton won 20 (plus the District of Columbia with its 3 electoral votes). Thus, under the proportional system I've outlined, Trump would have won 290 electoral votes while Clinton would have won 248. The final result (i.e. Trump becoming President) would have been the same.

(Oh, and to those who complain that the only reason Trump won as many districts as he did was because of gerrymandering, I totally agree with you. Gerrymandering should be made illegal nationwide.)

Tweaking the Electoral College in this way would give voice to political minorities within each state while still giving an edge to the overall statewide winner. And as shown above, it would still protect the nation as a whole from dominance by a single state or by a few urban areas.

As for the popular vote, counting only the votes for Clinton and Trump, Clinton would have won, with 65.85 million to 62.98 million. However, if you subtract out California, you're left with 57.10 million for Clinton versus 58.50 million for Trump. In other words, Trump won the overall popular vote if California isn't counted. My point is not that California shouldn't have a say, but rather that it shouldn't be the deciding factor. The Electoral College saved the nation from the tyranny of a single state's votes, just as it was intended to do. And just as it should do, in a federal republic such as the United States of America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:56 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
27,374 posts, read 28,451,420 times
Reputation: 24904
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeutralParty View Post
Yes, Trump dominated Hillary with states won. But again, in a popular vote, that means nothing and Hillary wins pretty easily.
Trump would have campaigned differently if the popular vote determined the election.

Either way, Trump would have crushed Hillary in a landslide. Hillary was born to lose the Presidency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:58 AM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,649 posts, read 28,528,829 times
Reputation: 50476
I think even when JFK won over Nixon, Nixon had the most popular votes. Will have to look that up but I seem to remember people back then complaining about the electoral college.

Someday it will be modernized so that we have more of a true democracy where everyone gets ONE VOTE. I don't think it will pass this time, but someday.

edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U...ntial_election


In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by less than two tenths of one percentage point (0.17%)—the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century. In the Electoral College, Kennedy's victory was larger, as he took 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219; 269 were needed to win. A total of 15 electors—eight from Mississippi, six from Alabama, and one from Oklahoma—refused to vote for either Kennedy or Nixon. Instead, they cast their votes for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, a conservative Democrat, even though he had not been a candidate for president.

The popular vote was very close. The electoral college makes a difference--and it can work for or against you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top