- 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
re: .
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:21 pm to cahoots
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:21 pm to cahoots
quote:
So what anyway?
quote:Indeed. It makes no sense. That's because you're arguing from a false premise.
If a person moves from Wyoming to New York City, why should the same person have less voting power? Makes no sense.
0
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:22 pm to cahoots
You would rather the four most populous counties in California choose the President every time?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:22 pm to cahoots
quote:By this logic people could choose to move to swing states, could they not?
The power is not being intentionally concentrated in those areas. People are freely choosing to live in those areas.
quote:Literally no.
Their vote would count the same no matter where they choose to live in a popular voting system.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:25 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
By this logic people could choose to move to swing states, could they not?
Sure, but the government is intentionally granting more voting power to smaller states that don't meet a certain population threshold. So I don't see how that makes it a better choice than people dictating it themselves.
Also, it's arbitrary. I mean, a rural voter in a big state and a rural voter in a small state often have the same profile. Yet one gets more power....
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:27 pm to TheFonz
quote:
You would rather the four most populous counties in California choose the President every time?
If people decide to move to California, then yes, I don't see why their vote shouldn't always count the same
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:28 pm to cahoots
quote:It doesn't. We've shown the math why. The 2-votes for every state doesn't come anwhere close to leveling the playing field. But once again... why should a vote in Wyoming count less?
Then why should a rural vote in Wyoming count more than a rural vote in NY state?
The ENTIRE POPULATION of Wyoming is 1/14th of Manhattan. Wyoming is 147,000 square miles. Manhattan is 23 square miles.
So despite occupying 6,391 TIMES more area, it would have 1/14th of the voting influence.
Does that seem logical to you?
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:29 pm to cahoots
quote:
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:29 pm to roadGator
quote:But... Muh Swing States!! Boters in swing states have too much power.
And the alternative allows 5 cities to run the entire country
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:30 pm to CptRusty
quote:
Check and mate.
Are you soliciting prostitution?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:32 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
I know, I know, it's funny to laugh at the president but can we get back on topic?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:32 pm to cahoots
quote:Nope.
intentionally granting more voting power to smaller states that don't meet a certain population threshold.
quote:Muh Anarchy!
I don't see how that makes it a better choice than people dictating it themselves.
quote:Nope.
I mean, a rural voter in a big state and a rural voter in a small state often have the same profile. Yet one gets more power....
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:33 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
why should a vote in Wyoming count less?
It counts the same. It's exactly the same. 1 / # of Americans who vote.
quote:
The ENTIRE POPULATION of Wyoming is 1/14th of Manhattan. Wyoming is 147,000 square miles. Manhattan is 23 square miles.
So despite occupying 6,391 TIMES more area, it would have 1/14th of the voting influence.
Does that seem logical to you?
Yes, I don't think the amount of land between people should factor in to voting power
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:35 pm to cahoots
Because Indoctrination is real. You’re essentially looking at the product of a specific goverment’s area. The state. The county. The issues they cover and the platform will control what the majority thinks.
California isn’t all blue, fwiw. The red areas hate that the state tries to restrict them so much.
Example: Hollywood doesn’t know anything about farming so why should they have more power as to what our govt does than a rural area that produces our food? One makes food and the other makes movies. People who make movies have a more valuable opinion than the blue collar people who keep the country going? Because they have more people? Are you seeing how silly this notion is, yet?
California isn’t all blue, fwiw. The red areas hate that the state tries to restrict them so much.
Example: Hollywood doesn’t know anything about farming so why should they have more power as to what our govt does than a rural area that produces our food? One makes food and the other makes movies. People who make movies have a more valuable opinion than the blue collar people who keep the country going? Because they have more people? Are you seeing how silly this notion is, yet?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:35 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Muh Anarchy!
If I move around the country and my vote always counts the same whether I live in a hut in Wyoming, a studio in Manhattan, or a shrimp boat in Louisiana, that isn't anarchy!
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:37 pm to RBWilliams8
quote:
Example: Hollywood doesn’t know anything about farming so why should they have more power as to what our govt does than a rural area that produces our food? One makes food and the other makes movies. People who make movies have a more valuable opinion than the blue collar people who keep the country going? Because they have more people? Are you seeing how silly this notion is, yet?
If every vote counts the same, everyone has the same power. Otherwise, you are picking winners and losers based on geography and nothing else
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:38 pm to cahoots
quote:That "amount of land" is called state territory.
Yes, I don't think the amount of land between people should factor in to voting power
Do you want to remove states entirely and be ruled solely by a single, federal government?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:38 pm to cahoots
quote:
If every vote counts the same, everyone has the same power. Otherwise, you are picking winners and losers based on geography and nothing else
Every vote does count the same....unless you are Democrat. They pick who will be their parties nominee regardless of the outcomes. Strangely, you have never posted a thread about that. I wonder why...
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:39 pm to cahoots
quote:Nope. That's not how politics works in a pure population based representation. Concentrated population concentrates power. BY DEFINITION.
It counts the same. It's exactly the same. 1 / # of Americans who vote.
The priorities and needs in Manhattan ARE NOT THE SAME as they are in Wyoming. Yet Manhattan would be over-represeted by 14x (strictly by population) in the government.
quote:It's not just the land.
Yes, I don't think the amount of land between people should factor in to voting power
By your "plan" it would have 1/89,000th of the political value of New York city. A resident of that state would no worthy representation--for a state rich in natural resources available to all states.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:40 pm to cahoots
quote:WHHHHOOOOOSH! It went right over your head. But that's unsurprising.
If I move around the country and my vote always counts the same whether I live in a hut in Wyoming, a studio in Manhattan, or a shrimp boat in Louisiana, that isn't anarchy!
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:40 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Pssst. Ask him why that would be a good thing.
Do you want to remove states entirely and be ruled solely by a single, federal government?
Page 12 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News