- 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 10:33 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:33 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
So losing influences increases the value of a persons vote? Interesting concept. No actually, it’s silly.
Every vote would count the same. As it stands some are more valuable than others so those tees would necessarily lose influence.
quote:
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.
I get that but elections have been decided by half a million votes several times. You couldn’t afford to skip Louisiana. Plus Louisiana is being skipped right now anyway.
It makes more sense to hit more Americans than it does to select a comparatively small few and give them way more influence for no reason other than arbitrary state lines.
2
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:35 am to Taxing Authority
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.
Because it's obvious why it's a good thing. Focusing on 80% of the country instead of 20%. More Americans.
Living in an area with a lot of jobs like Texas or California shouldn't put you at a political disadvantage to someone in Iowa.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 10:37 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:36 am to cahoots
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/19/21 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:37 am to cahoots
Bruh
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:37 am to cahoots
quote:
The main reason why the electoral college sucks
Because you lost.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:37 am to cahoots
quote:
Living in an area with a lot of jobs like Texas or California shouldn't put you at a political disadvantage to someone in Iowa.
WUT?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:38 am to cahoots
quote:I hate this phrase because it implies that votes don't count today.
But still, every vote would count.
Every vote cast in every Presidential election counts. They count toward the election of state electors who vote for the President.
The issue about electoral votes is dumb. A vote in California is not worth less than a vote in Wyoming. A vote is a vote and it's all about getting more votes for one candidate than the rest in each and every state (except for maybe split-vote states).
The reason why people think votes aren't worth as much in some places as others is because they keep thinking nationally when the entire point of the EC is to give states a say in who they want as their President. In each state, every vote counts the same.
And you know what? Who cares how much a vote is "worth" anyway? I don't vote with the mindset that my vote might be worth more or less than someone in another state. My vote counts towards my state's electoral votes. I know this ahead of time and I vote to have a say in who my state chooses.
And that's what really matters to voters: that they are able to contribute toward the election of their candidate. No matter the system, there will always be people who think their votes and voices don't count or matter because they are drowned out by someone else, somewhere else. There are a lot of people in this country that live in big cities. Those people live much different lives with much different values than those who live in rural areas. If most of the time and money is spent rounding up urban voters in a NPV, the rural folks will feel like their votes don't really count. That's just the natural way of it.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:39 am to FooManChoo
quote:
because they keep thinking nationally when the entire point of the EC is to give states a say in who they want as their President. In each state, every vote counts the same.
THANK YOU!
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:40 am to cahoots
quote:
The coasts would likely be more divided!
People don't live in an area because of who they want to vote for. They live in an area based on jobs and family foremost.
quote:
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.
You see. You are now advocating for what you say is wrong with the EC. The coasts are blue because of pandering. So now you want POTUS contenders to pander to 2 cities and whoever gives those 2 cities the most, wins? You are trading what you call, the pandering to 8-10 states, for pandering to 2 or 3 cities. How does that makes sense in your mind?
quote:
Parts of middle America would lose influence, no doubt.
By part, you mean all? And by middle America you mean every state outside of California and New York.
quote:
So you couldn’t ignore Iowa and Louisiana even under a popular vote
You sure as shite could, even more easily.
You are under the falsity that the EC is actually the makeup of the Senate. You do understand electoral votes are based on population size. It's why California and New York have the 2 highest EC voters. Your solution is to ensure only those states decide POTUS. Nothing you've said has convinced anyone that 2 state rule wouldn't happen once the EC is abolished.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:40 am to cahoots
I think all democrats should live in CA and NY so their vote really matters
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:40 am to FooManChoo
quote:
And you know what? Who cares how much a vote is "worth" anyway? I don't vote with the mindset that my vote might be worth more or less than someone in another state. My vote counts towards my state's electoral votes. I know this ahead of time and I vote to have a say in who my state chooses.
That's nice, but try living in a swing state vs. non-swing state. The energy is completely different during an election. On average, people are wayyy more engaged in swing states. Your personal opinion aside, that's how it works
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:42 am to FooManChoo
quote:
And that's what really matters to voters: that they are able to contribute toward the election of their candidate. No matter the system, there will always be people who think their votes and voices don't count or matter because they are drowned out by someone else, somewhere else. There are a lot of people in this country that live in big cities. Those people live much different lives with much different values than those who live in rural areas. If most of the time and money is spent rounding up urban voters in a NPV, the rural folks will feel like their votes don't really count. That's just the natural way of it.
This is common sense and perfectly worded. Yet, cahoots will not understand.
His whole argument is "because Trump". That's really all it is about.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:42 am to cahoots
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/19/21 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:43 am to cahoots
quote:Nope. Influence would be concentrated. A concept you refuse to defend—notably.
Every vote would count the same. As it stands some are more valuable than others so those tees would necessarily lose influence.
quote:O course you could. If you picked up 35% of the vote in Manhattan you could completely invalidate every vote in Louisiana— if everyone voted for the same candidate.
I get that but elections have been decided by half a million votes several times. You couldn’t afford to skip Louisiana. Plus Louisiana is being skipped right now anyway.
Let thst sink in for a minute. Hillary wins 100% of LA. Trump wins 36% of NYC. Trump wins. As a candidate—you’d focus all your effor on (part of) NYC — as it would be more valuable than several stares combined. EVEN IF you didn’t expect to “win” the popular vote in NYC.
45% (not even a majority) of NYC is more valuable than LA, MS, and AL combined even if the candidate carries 60+ % of the vote in those states.
Why the f*ck would I care about those states?
When I can concentrate my advertising, campaign, GOTV in an areas I can walk across in an hour or two vs. spreading it across 3 states? As a candidate i dont even need to win a city to invalidate the votes of 3 states.
How does that make those states votes count more?
quote:
It makes more sense to hit more Americans than it does to select a comparatively small few and give them way more influence for no reason other than arbitrary state lines.
thst would be he case if population was evenly distributed. It isn’t. I’ve provided you with the math on why you’re wrong. This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 10:48 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:44 am to cahoots
quote:
That's nice, but try living in a swing state vs. non-swing state
I live in Louisiana. I'm quite energized to vote come November. Do you have some special power to detect every human citizen's election desires? Because that's the only possible way your argument makes sense. Otherwise, you are speaking anecdotally because you are upset that America is kicking arse again.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:44 am to BugAC
quote:
This is common sense and perfectly worded. Yet, cahoots will not understand.
His whole argument is "because Trump". That's really all it is about.
I’ve made it pretty clear that I think changing to a popular system would completely change the results of elections. It’s not about the 2016 election. But you can keep pretending that you know what I think and misinterpreting almost every post that I make.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:44 am to cahoots
quote:
Living in an area with a lot of jobs like Texas or California shouldn't put you at a political disadvantage to someone in Iowa.
Thank you.
This is what I was getting at in my rural vs urban threads. The reason so many of those states are sparsely populated is due to many nonpolitical factors. Jobs are one of the major reasons people congregate. That goes for conservatives cities like Dallas and Nashville as well as the liberal strongholds.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:45 am to cahoots
quote:
Living in an area with a lot of jobs like Texas or California shouldn't put you at a political disadvantage to someone in Iowa.
it doesn’t now. Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:45 am to BugAC
quote:
I live in Louisiana. I'm quite energized to vote come November.
Lol
There’s not an electoral college involved in the November election.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 10:46 am to cahoots
quote:
cahoots
Two questions for you baw:
1) Did you pass Civics in High School?
2) Do you understand why the Electoral College was implemented?
Page 5 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News