- 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 10:03 am to cahoots
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:03 am to cahoots
quote:
The number of Americans employed in the coal industry is minimal and almost exclusively in the Midwest. It’s clearly pandering to those people. Every industry affects the country but you are kidding yourself if you don’t think coal is being placed much higher on the priority list than if those coal plants were located in California or Texas
Coal reduces energy costs in that region. There is no need for Coal in California or Texas because A) Coal isn't readily available in those areas and B) Petroleum is available in those areas.
quote:
It’s funny because you say that Hilldog ignores the Midwest and lost. But then now you’re saying that Trump didn’t pander to them.
Because it's fact, dumbass. Hillary skipped campaigning in many Midwest states. That is stupidity of the highest magnitude for any presidential candidate. Trump didn't have to pander to them. He promised common sense economic policy. Allowing for coal energy reduces the need for petroleum or natural gas to power coal dependent states, which decreases the need for shipping/transportation/construction costs to get O&G products to those states which in turn increases our net O&G reserves and further decreases our need for foreign O&G (middle east).
But, I understand the connectivity of America's resources. It's why we are a country and not a bunch of nation states battling it out for different resources. We share our natural resources between our different states that form our nation.
I shouldn't have to teach you basic economics, civics, nor geography. You clearly don't understand how the transfer of goods and services work. Therefore, you are handicapped in discussing this subject with any useful knowledge.
1
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:05 am to The Pirate King
quote:
Where were these electoral college threads between 2008-2016?
They'll disappear after 2020 when DJT wins the popular vote as well.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:06 am to cahoots
quote:
Here's how it goes: President panders to swing states Swing states help President get elected President keeps pandering to swing states The entire presidency is constantly biased towards swing states. And swing states are not the same thing as flyover states either. It's a very select few.
And if a candidate fails to visit any of those other "non important" states, what happens?
The Democrats control the coastal population hubs. If we go by your model, then what you claim is happening, will happen with the popular vote. When 10% of the countries population reside in 2 or 3 cities, don't you think that the politicians will cater to them, and only them?
How do you solve that dilemma of your own making?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:06 am to cahoots
quote:
cahoots
Nice sky scream
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:07 am to cahoots
quote:
The entire country would be much more engaged.
Lol shows how little you understand about your fellow American.
We could post a $100 payout to every voter and we still wouldn’t sniff 75% turnout
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:08 am to BugAC
quote:
Because it's fact, dumbass. Hillary skipped campaigning in many Midwest states. That is stupidity of the highest magnitude for any presidential candidate. Trump didn't have to pander to them. He promised common sense economic policy. Allowing for coal energy reduces the need for petroleum or natural gas to power coal dependent states, which decreases the need for shipping/transportation/construction costs to get O&G products to those states which in turn increases our net O&G reserves and further decreases our need for foreign O&G (middle east).
But, I understand the connectivity of America's resources. It's why we are a country and not a bunch of nation states battling it out for different resources. We share our natural resources between our different states that form our nation.
I shouldn't have to teach you basic economics, civics, nor geography. You clearly don't understand how the transfer of goods and services work. Therefore, you are handicapped in discussing this subject with any useful knowledge.
You are twisting what I am saying. I am pointing out that Trump is giving the Midwest way more attention that he otherwise would under a popular vote system.
Why do you think the USDA gives out massive subsidies that no politician can take away?
Just happenstance? Not a result of swing states in an election?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:13 am to cahoots
quote:
Why do you think the USDA gives out massive subsidies that no politician can take away?
How much do those fluctuate based on which party is president? Do you think Hillary would have done anything significantly different with regard to most of those, or any of them really?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:14 am to cahoots
quote:
Why do you think the USDA gives out massive subsidies that no politician can take away? Just happenstance? Not a result of swing states in an election?
So you are under the assumption that only "handouts" are given to swing states because of your example of steel and coal. Are you unaware of the massive subsidies to green energy, O&G, Farming, fishing, etc...? You can't cherry pick 2 examples and use that as your proof. It's intellectual dumbassery.
And explain something to me. Let's take a look at the 2016 election below.
quote:
National Popular Vote:
Killary -65,845,063
The Don - 62,980,160
Now for New York:
HRC - 4,556,124
DJT - 2,819,534
See the trend yet....
Los Angeles:
HRC - 2,464,364
DJT - 769,743
So, let's look at the National Vote minus NYC and LA
HRC - 58,824,575
DJT - 59,390,883
How does your solution reduce pandering to 2 cities that make up 17% of the voting population? The EC isn't perfect. But it is the most perfect model we have comparatively speaking. Your want is to Gerry mander the national election so lefties can win. It's plain to see.
ETA: and stop upvoting your own posts, it's embarrassing.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 10:16 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:15 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
How much do those fluctuate based on which party is president? Do you think Hillary would have done anything significantly different with regard to most of those, or any of them really?
No I don’t. I think they are virtually guaranteed from any politician. They are huge benefactors of those subsidies purely because of the electoral college.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:17 am to cahoots
Fairly simplistic view. HRC ignored what she thought were blue states, and she lost her arse.
California used to be a red state just 30+ years ago. Now it's bluer than the sky.
It's politics. Things can always change.
California used to be a red state just 30+ years ago. Now it's bluer than the sky.
It's politics. Things can always change.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:20 am to BugAC
quote:
And if a candidate fails to visit any of those other "non important" states, what happens?
The Democrats control the coastal population hubs. If we go by your model, then what you claim is happening, will happen with the popular vote. When 10% of the countries population reside in 2 or 3 cities, don't you think that the politicians will cater to them, and only them?
How do you solve that dilemma of your own making?
Here’s the thing. The electoral college has shaped presidential elections for over two centuries and it’s had an effect on where Dems and Republicans spend their resources for a long time. So I think the argument is that the political makeup of the country and the policies that shape it could be very different under a different system. All bets are off. The coasts would likely be more divided!
If we were to change to a popular overnight? Republicans and Democrats would have to create completely different strategies for coastal areas and the whole country. So yeah, it’s blue right now on the coasts, but the Republican Party would adapt and gain voters on the coasts.
Parts of middle America would lose influence, no doubt. But still, every vote would count. And some elections are decided by very narrow margins. So you couldn’t ignore Iowa and Louisiana even under a popular vote
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 10:23 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:21 am to cahoots
quote:This would not change with the popular vote. In fact it would be worse. Instead of influencing the outcome of a state your vote would be diluted by all the other states.
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.
quote:This would be worse under popular vote. Candidates would focus on certain zip codes, rather than states. And honestly, what President other than Trump has cared about keeping “campaign promises”.
But it doesn’t end there. Since campaigns are laser focused on swing states, so are campaign promises
quote:Why is this a problem? Why is taking influence away from swing states and giving it to more populated states a good thing? You have yet to make an argument of merit.
So not only does the electoral college render many Americans’ votes worthless, it also creates constant bias towards catering to the needs of Americans in swing states
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 10:23 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:23 am to cahoots
quote:
quote:
Without the Electoral College system states with high population like New York, California, etc. would decide elections. The Electoral College system was genius.
You guys keep saying this, but popular votes in the past would have resulted in Presidents that were not favored by NY/Cali
Do you not see that?
If we are going with a popular vote; why bother with states at all?
Everything on the federal level is going to be decided on the whims of California, Chicago and New York.
Is that the end game here? Does purposefully balancing power mean nothing at all?
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 10:25 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:25 am to Chinese Bandit
I don't think the EC I the issue. It's the 'winner take all' rules put in by various states.
That is not a Constitutional issue, it is the states corrupting the EC that is the issue.
That is not a Constitutional issue, it is the states corrupting the EC that is the issue.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:25 am to Chinese Bandit
quote:
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.
This is the only modification I would support (although it would dilute the states even further).
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:27 am to RollTide1987
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.
Okay. So how does that change with a straight popular vote?
Here's how this could actually be improved: instead of eliminating the EC, make the entire country like Maine, where instead of winner take all, each congressional district has its own electoral vote. I think Trump's margin of victory would have been massive...he would have gotten some EVs from California...but it would still make it more likely that your vote means something, if that's an issue for you.
edit: I obviously didn't read the whole thread before posting this.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 10:29 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:27 am to cahoots
quote:
cahoots
So move to California and make your vote count, genius.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:28 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
This would be worse under popular vote. Candidates would focus on certain zip codes, rather than states. And honestly, what President other than Trump has cared about keeping “campaign promises”.
There would be more focus on population centers, yes, but you wouldn’t be able to ignore anywhere. These things are decided by very narrow margins. Also the areas currently dominated by one party or the other would be fought over, resulting in more divided population centers.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:28 am to cahoots
quote:Indded. It forces focus away from about 30 ZIP codes. You have to win the country. Not a few districts.
The electoral college has shaped presidential elections for over two centuries and it’s had an effect on where Dems and Republicans spend their resources for a long time.
quote:No isht. Now explain why his would be a good thing—why is concentrating all political influence a good thing?
So I think the argument is that the political makeup of the country and the policies that shape it could be very different under a different system.
quote:So losing influences increases the value of a persons vote? Interesting concept. No actually, it’s silly.
Parts of middle America would lose influence, no doubt. But still, every vote would coun
quote:
So you couldn’t ignore Iowa and Louisiana even under a popular vote
you don’t understand population distribution very well do you? Manhattan has almost twice the population of Louisiana. It has more population than Louisiana and Iowa combined. Honestly if you compare population concentration now vs when the EC was conceived—it’s much more concentrated. The uniform part of the vote should be stronger today than it was when the constitution was written—not eliminated.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 10:30 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:32 am to cahoots
quote:Yes. You would. Your concept of population distribution is all out of wack. When you have a portion of a single city that holds more population than several states combined—you aren’t spreading political influence. You’re concentrating it—a concept you still haven’t explained as being a good thing.
There would be more focus on population centers, yes, but you wouldn’t be able to ignore anywhere
Page 4 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News