- 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
re: .
Posted on 10/9/18 at 2:35 pm to cahoots
Posted on 10/9/18 at 2:35 pm to cahoots
quote:
If you are a blue voter in a red state or a red voter in a blue state, you are essentially useless in the eyes of a presidential candidate. It’s all about the swing states.
Which is why you cant even look at the popular vote. It tells you nothing. It doesnt account for the people who dont vote based on their states inevitable result. Congrats on killing that line of thinking.
0
Posted on 10/9/18 at 2:35 pm to cahoots
quote:In the case of such response, refer to Page 4, Section 8
Hey donald trump hates the EC too. I'm on his side. Don't playa hate!
Posted on 10/9/18 at 2:37 pm to cahoots
Trade giving up EC for removing voter rights for those on welfare?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 2:37 pm to jimdog
quote:
A straight popular vote would focus power, prosperity, and the nation's well being in the sole hands of a handful of huge states and eventually lead to the breakup of the Republic
Unrealized consequences of stupid ideas. If the left ever had power again, and succeeded with this, the country would certainly break up.
Let's add this to the list of bad ideas progressives think will work this time around. This will go hand in hand with socialism and communism. Stupidity is a disease.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 2:42 pm to cahoots
quote:
(hello corn subsidies!)
amazing you can simultaneously recognize this problem yet apparently have no idea why the electoral college is necessary.
Forrest for the trees, or some such...
Posted on 10/9/18 at 3:02 pm to cahoots
quote:
False. NY and Cali do not decide popular votes in many presidential elections
You know as well as I do they these two states carry a very large immigrant population- which also happens to be a staple of the DNC- and that they are the biggest pieces of the pie.
No thanks. They would absolutely control every Presidential election- unless things got so bad all hell was breaking loose on a scale we've never seen.
Again- no thanks.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 3:13 pm to Chinese Bandit
quote:
I am not going to do the work as I am too lazy....but I wonder how the electoral votes would have worked out if every Representative district gave 1 electoral vote for the winner of the popular vote in that district and the overall winner of popular for the state got the extra 2 electoral votes for the senators. There are surely a lot of districts in CA and NY that would have gone R and I am sure there are a lot of districts in TX that would have gone D. Perhaps someone already did this math but it would be an interesting view.
this is actually how it should be done. You shouldn't get all the votes from new york or from cali because of 1-2 cities. Every state should be have their EC votes broken down into that many districts minus 2 or 3 like you said. Winner of each district gets that ec vote and the winner of the state gets a 2 or 3 point bonus (winner by EC votes)
Posted on 10/9/18 at 3:15 pm to lsu777
A couple of states do something close to that.
Nebraska and Vermont maybe? I'd have to look it up.
ETA: Maine and Nebraska.
Nebraska and Vermont maybe? I'd have to look it up.
ETA: Maine and Nebraska.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 3:21 pm to CptRusty
I think we should change the system to where you have to have to either pay federal taxes or have an established history of paying income taxes to vote. I could make a much more sound argument for that that a majority rules voting system based totally on the popular vote.
Or we should vote based on geography
Seriously...why should the citizens in the blue areas above dictate policy to the rest of us?
Or we should vote based on geography
Seriously...why should the citizens in the blue areas above dictate policy to the rest of us?
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 3:45 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
Look at the US map for the last presidential election divided by county.
Almost the entire thing was red.
That’s why we have the EC
This is his exact point. Urban areas are undervalued.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 3:55 pm to bmy
quote:Undervalued? They are carrying entire states.
This is his exact point. Urban areas are undervalued.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 4:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Undervalued? They are carrying entire states.
The whole point of the EC is to artificially undervalue certain areas. They are still influential, but undervalued. Not mutually exclusive.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 4:08 pm to cahoots
quote:That's a feature, not a bug
The whole point of the EC is to artificially undervalue certain areas
But you're all imbecile so there's no teaching you
Posted on 10/9/18 at 4:10 pm to cahoots
quote:
The whole point of the EC is to artificially undervalue certain areas.
Not even close
Posted on 10/9/18 at 4:12 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
Why would you live in a blue state
Washington, as long as you don't actually reside in Pierce or King Counties (Tacoma and Seattle) is a GREAT place to live.
It's basically a red state with a DARK BLUE area where the majority of the population reside.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 4:17 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
That's a feature, not a bug
But you're all imbecile so there's no teaching you
You've told me at least 6 or 7 times. Do you think the president is an imbecile too for thinking the EC is a stupid "feature?"
Posted on 10/9/18 at 4:20 pm to ShortyRob
If you reallllly wanted to let rural voters have more power (all of flyover county, not just part of it), you'd break down the electoral college down to each county. That way, rural voters everywhere would have more power.
As it stands, a rural vote in NY state is worth the same as a vote in Manhattan. Which is non-nonsensical if you're worried about the rural/urban divide.
Same for Texas. People live in tiny towns in TX. No electoral benefits there. Hmmmm.
As it stands, a rural vote in NY state is worth the same as a vote in Manhattan. Which is non-nonsensical if you're worried about the rural/urban divide.
Same for Texas. People live in tiny towns in TX. No electoral benefits there. Hmmmm.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 4:22 pm to cahoots
quote:It's not about value but balance. It's about preventing tyranny by making sure neither the minority nor the majority are able to put a boot on the throat of the other.
The whole point of the EC is to artificially undervalue certain areas. They are still influential, but undervalued. Not mutually exclusive.
The EC seeks to balance the will of the people with the sovereignty of the states. It's about preventing one giant state like California from dominating everyone else just because a lot of people want to live there.
The whole fabric of our government is about checks and balances and a balance of power between the states and the federal government. What the EC does is provide balance by letting the states decide the President so no one state can determine how the rest of the country will be governed. It provides proportional weighting based on population to reflect the will of the people while also giving a say to other states and the peoples in them to ensure they are not left out.
We are the United States of America and must take into account what the various states have to say about governance. It's why we have representatives and not a straight democratic vote by the people because that produces mob rule, often by those stirred by their passions without reason to guide them.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 4:24 pm to cahoots
quote:
The whole point of the EC is to maintain the power of the states under our Federation
Posted on 10/9/18 at 4:26 pm to cahoots
quote:
If you reallllly wanted to let rural voters have more power (all of flyover county, not just part of it), you'd break down the electoral college down to each county. That way, rural voters everywhere would have more power.
You fundamentally misunderstand the EC. States already have this power if they so chose to exercise it.
Page 15 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News