- 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
1
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:41 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
That "amount of land" is called state territory.
Do you want to remove states entirely and be ruled solely by a single, federal government?
No, that’s what local and state governments are for! To control the local policy. And you even get to elect reps to the national level!
When it comes to the President, there is no reason to intentionally create a system that biases the election and therefore national policy towards small states.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:41 pm to cahoots
I'll ask again. Have you changed any minds yet?
Also, did shareblue send out the talking points about the ec.
Also, did shareblue send out the talking points about the ec.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:41 pm to Roaad
quote:
is that you did not get what you want
That is the summation of all of cahoots' posts.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:42 pm to cahoots
quote:So are you for repealnig the senate, and only having the HofR?
If every vote counts the same, everyone has the same power.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:43 pm to cahoots
quote:Muh Federalism!
No, that’s what local and state governments are for!
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:45 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Which is particularly funny given that he wants the power to overrun federalism.
Muh Federalism!
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:45 pm to cahoots
quote:"And you even get to elect reps to the national level!"
No, that’s what local and state governments are for! To control the local policy. And you even get to elect reps to the national level!
That's the key right there. Each state has a say in how the federal government works. The electoral college is an extension of this framework which allows the states to have a say in what happens on the federal level. What you are proposing is eliminating the voice of the states in the election of the President of the UNITED STATES.
quote:There is no bias towards small states. It's not a bias but a protection. It prevents the large states from completely bullying the small states, who have economies and resources that are useful to the country as a whole.
When it comes to the President, there is no reason to intentionally create a system that biases the election and therefore national policy towards small states.
I think you said previously that you understand the context behind the EC, but I honestly don't think you really understand why it was important to the founders.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:46 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
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.
Which is why Wyoming still gets representation in Congress. However when you start giving small states more power in the presidential election, it completely shifts the focus of the election to a small handful of the country. And that further shifts federal policy (hello corn subsidies!)
I agree that we can’t just let manhattan run everything, but right now, national elections are bananas. It’s just stupid how much power podunk states get. Like I said, Wyoming has almost 4x as many electoral voters per capita as California or Texas. 4 times!
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:46 pm to cahoots
Here's big reason why it doesn't: Without it, we would all be under the boot of CA and NY politics and would likely have a perpetual far left President.
Nooooooooooo thanks.
Nooooooooooo thanks.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:47 pm to oleheat
quote:
Here's big reason why it doesn't: Without it, we would all be under the boot of CA and NY politics and would likely have a perpetual far left President.
Nooooooooooo thanks.
False. NY and Cali do not decide popular votes in many presidential elections
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:47 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Which is particularly funny given that he wants the power to overrun federalism.
Exactly.Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:50 pm to cahoots
quote:Actually, what it does is disperses power to a more varied type of citizen.
Which is why Wyoming still gets representation in Congress. However when you start giving small states more power in the presidential election, it completely shifts the focus of the election to a small handful of the country
Popular vote basically values urban over all else.
But, Wyoming and Bama, while not urban, are remarkably different in needs/desires.
Maine is different than both of them. New Mexico is different than any of those.
But, you liberals are too stupid to see that because you only see urban vs everybody.
Because you aren't intelligent. That's really the only explanation. Or, you're just so whiny about not getting your way, that's the only way you can see it.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:51 pm to cahoots
Swing states come and go, the EC is permanent. Adjust.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:53 pm to cahoots
quote:You keep talking about this voting power thing as if it's true but I don't think you really understand what you're talking about.
However when you start giving small states more power in the presidential election, it completely shifts the focus of the election to a small handful of the country. And that further shifts federal policy (hello corn subsidies!)
I agree that we can’t just let manhattan run everything, but right now, national elections are bananas. It’s just stupid how much power podunk states get. Like I said, Wyoming has almost 4x as many electoral voters per capita as California or Texas. 4 times!
Regardless of how much "voting power" individuals in the state of Wyoming have, the state only get 3 votes out of 538. California gets 55 all by itself. People in Wyoming vote so that their state can provide 0.006% of the overall total of votes for President. Seems like you're saying that's unfair that Wyoming gets such a huge and disproportionate say in things.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:55 pm to cahoots
quote:Wait what? If their vote shouldn't "count more" or not? Or just sometiems? You're making no objective sense. USING YOUR LOGIC why shouldn't equal representation in the Senate be ended?
Which is why Wyoming still gets representation in Congress
quote:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I've just shown you that a 22sq.mi. area has 14x more voters than a 147,000sq.mi. Where do you think campaings will focus? On WY (an entire state) or Manhattan (part of a city)? You're literally saying the cure is worse than the disease. It's as curious as it is frustrating.
owever when you start giving small states more power in the presidential election, it completely shifts the focus of the election to a small handful of the country.
quote:OK. As asked like 100 times... why is underrepresenting rurual areas a good idea?
And that further shifts federal policy (hello corn subsidies!)
Oh, and just to put the final nail in this feckle attempt... corn subsidies are passed BY CONGRESS not the president... ie Congressional representation, that has literally NOTHING to do with the Electorial College.
quote:
I agree that we can’t just let manhattan run everything,
quote:
It’s just stupid how much power podunk states get.
quote:
Wyoming has almost 4x as many electoral voters per capita as California or Texas. 4 times!
Nope. AFAIK people in Wyoming are only allowed to vote once. As far as total vote power... that a feature. Not a bug. This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:56 pm to cahoots
quote:
False. NY and Cali do not decide popular votes in many presidential elections
it's never too late to read this thread.Posted on 10/9/18 at 1:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:But it's just not fffffaaaaair.
People in Wyoming vote so that their state can provide 0.006% of the overall total of votes for President. Seems like you're saying that's unfair that Wyoming gets such a huge and disproportionate say in things.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 2:01 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Regardless of how much "voting power" individuals in the state of Wyoming have, the state only get 3 votes out of 538. California gets 55 all by itself. People in Wyoming vote so that their state can provide 0.006% of the overall total of votes for President.
0.6%
You need to work on your understanding of percentages
Posted on 10/9/18 at 2:03 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Wait what? If their vote shouldn't "count more" or not? Or just sometiems? You're making no objective sense. USING YOUR LOGIC why shouldn't equal representation in the Senate be ended?
My logic is that they already get unequal representation in Congress, so that should be enough. But noooo, need more power!
Page 13 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News