- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Electoral College and why it is vital to keep it as is....
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:11 am
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:11 am
From Allen West article --
quote:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
19
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:13 am to MMauler
Because Democrats/Liberals bitch and complain when shite doesn't go their way
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:18 am to MMauler
It basically simplifies to the founders' fear of a few big cities or very populous states getting to decide everything.
I'd be interested to see if there were a causation between the United States historical development of the interior vs nations without an electoral compartmentalization of national elections. If you could win the presidency by just heavily controlling the coastal areas, why would you ever bother with improvements or funding to the interior?
EDIT:
For example, much of latin America has always used a popular vote to elect a president. That same area has only ever concentrated on development along the coastal areas or in the higher population areas. Why would any Brazilian President improve Amazonia? There are no votes there.
I'd be interested to see if there were a causation between the United States historical development of the interior vs nations without an electoral compartmentalization of national elections. If you could win the presidency by just heavily controlling the coastal areas, why would you ever bother with improvements or funding to the interior?
EDIT:
For example, much of latin America has always used a popular vote to elect a president. That same area has only ever concentrated on development along the coastal areas or in the higher population areas. Why would any Brazilian President improve Amazonia? There are no votes there.
This post was edited on 11/30/16 at 11:20 am
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:18 am to MMauler
No system is perfect, but the EC as-is is the best happy medium we have. It is also a credit to the foresight of the Founding Fathers. Very smart men.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:33 am to MMauler
quote:
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Meh. It's a nice argument but the vote is about people not land mass.
2,968,750 of that 4 million square miles he talks about is used for animal agriculture.
Since cows don't vote - it's not that big a deal that people are concentrated in the big cities and on the Coasts.
Regardless, EC isn't going away and should always be here.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:42 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
2,968,750 of that 4 million square miles he talks about is used for animal agriculture.
That feeds everybody, regardless what side of the fence they're on, so, why shouldn't those responsible for feeding us not have as much, if not more, sayso on how to manage their own land.
Does a good ole farm boy go to downtown New York City and tell the city council how to do their business? However, you got plenty of big city folk wanting to tell that poor ole farm boy what he can and can't do with his own property.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:47 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
argument but the vote is about people not land mass.
Wrong, it's about the states voting for who they want to run the United States.
And you are right about the EC staying. It protects our form of government.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:47 am to MMauler
Yep. It's very important to keep the EC. POTUS Trump may disagree, but, he's wrong on this.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:54 am to biggsc
quote:
Because Democrats/Liberals bitch and complain when shite doesn't go their way
Dude, the fricking president elect is claiming voter fraud when he won by pretty much a gigantic mandate. Don't play partisan bullshite here. The melt would have been just as big had Trump lost.
Are we ever going to talk about anything on here of substance or are you going to keep up the BS rhetoric?
<---- voted fro Trump.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:56 am to cokebottleag
quote:
It basically simplifies to the founders' fear of a few big cities or very populous states getting to decide everything.
It's not even federally mandated that EC votes are winner take all. The states actually have the power to decide how to allocate the EC votes. Maine and Nebraska divvy them up differently than everyone else based on popular votes in each district.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 11:57 am to MMauler
Had there been no EC then Trump would have campaigned more in CA and NY. This could have caused a shift in the popular vote to go in Trump's favor. But we all know he really won the PV because illegal votes don't count and neither does the multiple voting by one person.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 12:05 pm to MMauler
I get the point, but each state should not be winner take all. That suppresses votes on both sides. Republicans on the east and west coast and Democrats in the middle. It should be done like the primaries in my opinion.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 12:05 pm to MMauler
It makes no sense to say that the EC was put in place so that big population centers wouldn't control the vote. We're taking about an age before big cities were a thing. NYC had like 25,000 people back then.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 12:08 pm to Napoleon
I did too
Posted on 11/30/16 at 12:36 pm to Napoleon
quote:
The melt would have been just as big had Trump lost.
Get the f*ck out of here.
To even suggest that is f*cking ignorant.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 12:46 pm to cahoots
quote:
t makes no sense to say that the EC was put in place so that big population centers wouldn't control the vote. We're taking about an age before big cities were a thing. NYC had like 25,000 people back then.
It's called foresight.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 12:48 pm to MMauler
quote:
Large, densely populated Democrat cities
So just cities then?
Most urban population centers vote blue. I get that this is better for republicans, but shouldn't everyone's vote be worth the same?Posted on 11/30/16 at 12:49 pm to cahoots
quote:
It's not even federally mandated that EC votes are winner take all. The states actually have the power to decide how to allocate the EC votes. Maine and Nebraska divvy them up differently than everyone else based on popular votes in each district.
You make a great point.
With Republicans controlling the vast majority of State legislatures and governorships, these states should look to divvy up the EC votes in another manner.
Oh, say like County by county!
quote:
quote: There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
Democrats would have to completely disban as a political party.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 12:50 pm to cahoots
quote:"Big" is relative. 25,000 people was a lot at the time in the US/colonies. Plus, the concept is true regardless of the true number. They could also have looked at England as an example (if they were to vote democratically for a president rather than a king) and see that London was a lot more populated than the rest of the country, giving the city all the power and control.
It makes no sense to say that the EC was put in place so that big population centers wouldn't control the vote. We're taking about an age before big cities were a thing. NYC had like 25,000 people back then.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 12:58 pm to dcrews
quote:
It's called foresight.
Really? It doesn't say anything about that in the federalist papers or anything they wrote. They were just worried about giving the people too much power. It was a compromise to let the electors vote instead of the people or congress. Had nothing to do with population centers.
Again, states still have the power to divvy up electoral votes if they would like, which would essentially make it a popular vote. Your argument makes no sense.
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News