- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
NO! Monarchies were common though at the time of the founding. Good grief. 
0
Posted on 10/9/18 at 12:53 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
No. They aren't. Please show your math. How does a candidate that receives only 500,000 votes win the presidential election? Do you really believe a candidate can win the EC with a losing margin of 45,000,000 votes to 500,000 votes?
A margin of a half million people.
quote:
Tt's almost 1/3 of all elligible voters. And your problem is that the EC concentrates voting influence too much? But hey, thanks for maiing my case for me.
Maiing? Is that English?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 12:56 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Tt's almost 1/3 of all elligible voters. And your problem is that the EC concentrates voting influence too much? But hey, thanks for maiing my case for me.
So even if you miraculously got every single vote from every single person in every single top 20 metro (a huge blanket that includes lots of small towns), you'd only have 33% of the popular vote.
You started the technicalities. The top 20 cities do not decide elections. Nope.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:00 pm to cahoots
quote:I've already shown you how 34% OF ONE CITY can wipe out the votes of 3 states if those states voted at 100%. Or liek 6-7 states if their votes are like 50-50%.
So even if you miraculously got every single vote from every single person in every single top 20 metro (a huge blanket that includes lots of small towns), you'd only have 33% of the popular vote.
You're talking about 1-2% of geographical area of the country.
Once again... tell us why concentrating that power over such a small part of teh coutnry is a good thing? Is it because swing STATES have too much power? You're literally proposing a solution to a problem that makes the problem worse. quote:Nope. The math is the math. It has nothing to do with me.
You started the technicalities.
quote:Indeed! One has to win an entire state, not just 1/3 of a county.
The top 20 cities do not decide elections. Nope.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:02 pm to cahoots
quote:Well, with popular vote... it only takes a ONE (1) vote margin to win. OMG!!! OMG!!! Elections are decided by ONE VOTE!!! Everybody else's vote is worthless except that ONE PERSON.
A margin of a half million people.
quote:Making. Sorry your reading comprehension is so poor.
Maiing? Is that English?
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:07 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I've already shown you how 34% OF ONE CITY can wipe out the votes of 3 states if those states voted at 100%. Or liek 6-7 states if their votes are like 50-50%.
So what anyway? If a person moves from Wyoming to New York City, why should the same person have less voting power? Makes no sense.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:09 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You're talking about 1-2% of geographical area of the country. Once again... tell us why concentrating that power over such a small part of teh coutnry is a good thing? Is it because swing STATES have too much power? You're literally proposing a solution to a problem that makes the problem worse.
The power is not being intentionally concentrated in those areas. People are freely choosing to live in those areas. Their vote would count the same no matter where they choose to live in a popular voting system.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:11 pm to cahoots
And the alternative allows 5 cities to run the entire country...
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:14 pm to cahoots
quote:It's not less voting power. A person's vote counts just as much in Wyoming as it does if they move to New York. Their vote counts one time towards the winner of the state they live in.
So what anyway? If a person moves from Wyoming to New York City, why should the same person have less voting power? Makes no sense.
What you seem to be referring to is the number of EC votes each state provides. That's not a function of the "worth" of an individual vote but a proportional allocation of EV's based on the population totals of the states. Each individual's vote counts the same no matter what state they are in and each vote counts the same towards the goal of allocating electors towards one candidate or another.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:14 pm to RBWilliams8
quote:
And the alternative allows 5 cities to run the entire country...
Then why should a rural vote in Wyoming count more than a rural vote in NY state?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:16 pm to cahoots
quote:So your argument is that it doesn't matter if a few cities control the entire country because people choose where they want to live?
The power is not being intentionally concentrated in those areas. People are freely choosing to live in those areas. Their vote would count the same no matter where they choose to live in a popular voting system.
The entire point of the EC is to ensure that a few states or a few cities across the country do not dictate how the rest of the country should live and what rules and regulations they are subjected to. It's a form of tyrannical checks and balances that you seem to think is bad because of a perceived view of unfairness that isn't manifested in reality.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:16 pm to cahoots
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:16 pm to cahoots
Stupid argument is stupid.
The electoral college is part of the "equal and proportional" representation the founders sought to imbue in our system of government.
It provides a fair balance between these two paradigms. You need to recall that States are supposed to have a far larger role in governing themselves than they currently do. Once you understand the context in which our nation was formed, then you will understand why things like the Senate and the electoral college exist.
If, instead, you insist upon viewing the country as a monolithic bloc, you will naturally struggle to understand why things work the way they do.
The electoral college is part of the "equal and proportional" representation the founders sought to imbue in our system of government.
It provides a fair balance between these two paradigms. You need to recall that States are supposed to have a far larger role in governing themselves than they currently do. Once you understand the context in which our nation was formed, then you will understand why things like the Senate and the electoral college exist.
If, instead, you insist upon viewing the country as a monolithic bloc, you will naturally struggle to understand why things work the way they do.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:17 pm to RBWilliams8
And the alternative allows 5 cities to run the entire country
Make no mistake. Thats the whole reason the progs are bitching about the ec now.
Make no mistake. Thats the whole reason the progs are bitching about the ec now.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:17 pm to cahoots
quote:
he electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
then it is a good thing we do not live in a democracy!
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:17 pm to cahoots
quote:
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
Good thing I have no interest in democracy.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:18 pm to cahoots
quote:It doesn't "count more".
Then why should a rural vote in Wyoming count more than a rural vote in NY state?
A vote is a vote is a vote. A vote in Wyoming doesn't "count more" than a vote in California. What you are talking about is the disparity between the population of California and Wyoming and how they each get allocated electoral votes. It's a matter of proportion to ensure smaller states are completely overwhelmed by bigger ones. It's another check on tyranny.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:18 pm to cahoots
quote:
The main reason why the popular vote sucks by cahoots
If you are a blue voter in a rural area or less populated state or a red voter in a rural area or less popular state, you are essentially useless in the eyes of a presidential candidate. It’s all about the major cities.
But it doesn’t end there. Since campaigns are laser focused on major cities, so are campaign promises. And those same promises come to fruition long after they are elected.
So not only does the popular vote render many Americans’ votes worthless, it also creates constant bias towards catering to the needs of Americans in a small handful of major cities. It basically biases the presidency towards policies that influence the top 4 or 5 major cities ALL THE TIME.
Swing states can change and major population centers won't. Also, the senate appointed by the states was supposed to be the check to the problem but the 17th amendment basically killed that.
FIFY
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:20 pm to cahoots
quote:We live in a democratic, constitutional republic. "Democratic" and "constitutional" are modifiers of the term "republic". We are a republic where our representatives vote on our behalf instead of us directly voting for everything, ourselves.
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
Even our presidential votes aren't purely democratic. We vote for representatives (electors) who will vote for the President on our behalf.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:20 pm to Nguyener
Resident leftists will surely dispute this argument as a red herring, at which point one needs to do nothing other than point at ethanol mandates. Check and mate.
Page 11 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News