Jump to content

Recommended Posts

NDHoosier

3) I think this is where the fundamental disagreement lies. I think of the US as a country with the states being constituent parts, you see the US as being a union made up of the states. I don't know how we bridge this divide.

 

I appreciate the fairly civil discourse overall (at least between you and I). However, I would like to talk about this point you expanded on.

 

The USA has always been a union of various states. Many, myself included, forget that it is even in the name: UNITED STATES of America. The constitution was written with that in mind because they realized that a country will have people influenced differently depending on where they live.

 

People who grow up in Kansas have different values than people who grow up in the big cities. The people in Kansas were promised an equal representation on federal laws that will affect them. The electoral college fulfills that promise to each of the states. There is a process in place for a state to leave the Union.

 

Again, California benefited greatly when it first became a state from the electoral college, now that they are the most populated state, they do not see the need. This is why there are checks and balances so that the majority do not always have the final say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Electoral college only gets talked about after the Democrats lose the White House

 

If you eliminate the electoral college, then LA, New York, Miami, and Chicago would determine the representation of the ENTIRE country. It doesn’t even pass the common sense test.

 

But Trump didn’t do anything to collude with Russia so now the demoncrats have to find a new angle

I agree. If you get rid of the electoral college than the entire country will be run like California, Chicago and New York City, just think about what a disaster that would be. you can not let the crazies run the country we need people with common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) There is a difference in giving each state equal representation in the senate (what they were promised) and giving each state equal representation overall (what they were NOT promised). Even under the EC each state gets different representation.

 

2) I'm of the belief that states matter less now. When I think of myself I think of a US citizen, not a citizen of my state. And there is more movement today (for ex. I currently don't live in the state I was born in). So while each state is different I don't see them as having an identity that needs special protection. Representation in congress, and especially the senate, takes care of protecting state's rights, so I don't see the need to give low population states a leg up when it comes to electing a president who represents the entire country. Its the old saying, before the civil war the United states are, after the civil war the United States is.

 

3) Calling people who live in cities crazy and saying we shouldn't be run like them isn't a strong argument. Currently cities are experiencing far greater economic growth than rural states, they generally are better at guaranteeing equal rights to minorities, and they tend to come up with more novel solutions to problems. You might call that crazy, but others would say the rural states could use a little of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3) Calling people who live in cities crazy and saying we shouldn't be run like them isn't a strong argument. Currently cities are experiencing far greater economic growth than rural states, they generally are better at guaranteeing equal rights to minorities, and they tend to come up with more novel solutions to problems. You might call that crazy, but others would say the rural states could use a little of that.

with all that economic growth in those states im still wonder which state will go broke first, California or Illinois. also the entire west coast has a massive homeless problem and drug problem and then they want to turn around and legalize pot. not sure the answer to a drug problem is legalizing more drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1) There is a difference in giving each state equal representation in the senate (what they were promised) and giving each state equal representation overall (what they were NOT promised). Even under the EC each state gets different representation.

 

2) I'm of the belief that states matter less now. When I think of myself I think of a US citizen, not a citizen of my state. And there is more movement today (for ex. I currently don't live in the state I was born in). So while each state is different I don't see them as having an identity that needs special protection. Representation in congress, and especially the senate, takes care of protecting state's rights, so I don't see the need to give low population states a leg up when it comes to electing a president who represents the entire country. Its the old saying, before the civil war the United states are, after the civil war the United States is.

 

3) Calling people who live in cities crazy and saying we shouldn't be run like them isn't a strong argument. Currently cities are experiencing far greater economic growth than rural states, they generally are better at guaranteeing equal rights to minorities, and they tend to come up with more novel solutions to problems. You might call that crazy, but others would say the rural states could use a little of that.

 

I still don't believe, if it actually came down to a constitutional convention where all states met and a ratification of a new system had to take place, that the states with small populations would ever agree to give up the otherwise limited powers they have just to appease the states with larger populations. It doesn't matter whether a state's population always votes for a democrat or a republican for president. The citizens of small states believe they do not have much say in matters of national importance, and they are not likely to let states with larger populations dictate to them.

To me it's a matter of states, not a matter of populace. The United States is a union of individual states. Certainly a large percentage of the population of this union agrees with you that states don't matter as much any more. However, since it is a union of individual states, and states will not ever want to give up power that they have, I don't see that a change of the electoral college in the way you want will ever happen. Changes may happen, but I do not believe it will ever become a one person - one vote situation as it relates to electing a President.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm of the opinion that EC should be overhauled. It no longer does what it needs to do.

As an example, take a look at the political map of CA or WA State. It's a couple blue dots surrounded by red. The entire state of Washington deals with whatever laws or politicians Seattle wants voted in. The east side of the state is in open revolt over some of the stuff that's been voted in lately.

A solution might be to break the electoral college down even further. Perhaps an electoral vote awarded by county? There would probably have to be a way to weight large counties vs small counties, but it might encourage more people to vote AND it would force candidates to have to account for less populated areas. Think how you'd feel if you were a Republican in CA or a Democrat in Idaho. It would seem like your vote doesn't count for ****. The country is devolving into a urban vs rural debate in my opinion, and that has to be accounted for somehow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm of the opinion that EC should be overhauled. It no longer does what it needs to do.

As an example, take a look at the political map of CA or WA State. It's a couple blue dots surrounded by red. The entire state of Washington deals with whatever laws or politicians Seattle wants voted in. The east side of the state is in open revolt over some of the stuff that's been voted in lately.

A solution might be to break the electoral college down even further. Perhaps an electoral vote awarded by county? There would probably have to be a way to weight large counties vs small counties, but it might encourage more people to vote AND it would force candidates to have to account for less populated areas. Think how you'd feel if you were a Republican in CA or a Democrat in Idaho. It would seem like your vote doesn't count for ****. The country is devolving into a urban vs rural debate in my opinion, and that has to be accounted for somehow.

 

Its always been a rural/urban debate. That's why the EC was set up as well as both houses of Congress the way they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I should have been more clear. The debate is now that rural people are backwater hicks and urban folks are educated elitists. At least that's what it appears to be to me.

 

Agree. And I suppose that too has been an age old stereotype, at least towards rural people. Bell curve for intelligence appliesto both though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm of the opinion that EC should be overhauled. It no longer does what it needs to do.

As an example, take a look at the political map of CA or WA State. It's a couple blue dots surrounded by red. The entire state of Washington deals with whatever laws or politicians Seattle wants voted in. The east side of the state is in open revolt over some of the stuff that's been voted in lately.

A solution might be to break the electoral college down even further. Perhaps an electoral vote awarded by county? There would probably have to be a way to weight large counties vs small counties, but it might encourage more people to vote AND it would force candidates to have to account for less populated areas. Think how you'd feel if you were a Republican in CA or a Democrat in Idaho. It would seem like your vote doesn't count for ****. The country is devolving into a urban vs rural debate in my opinion, and that has to be accounted for somehow.

 

I agree with your premise quite a bit actually. Heck, Californians are so fed up with it that they are trying to petition a separate state because the entire state (which is very large) is run by the major cities on the west coast of the state. A republican in California will never have their voice heard.

 

I do think having all EC votes of a particular state go one direction is out-dated. For example, California is probably 90% Democrat, 10% Republican... so maybe their EC votes should reflect that. Obviously, the same is very true for every state, but California is one of the most one-sided states in the country with a MASSIVE population. California is the main reason why the EC still needs to exist... otherwise they would determine everything for the entire country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with your premise quite a bit actually. Heck, Californians are so fed up with it that they are trying to petition a separate state because the entire state (which is very large) is run by the major cities on the west coast of the state. A republican in California will never have their voice heard.

 

I do think having all EC votes of a particular state go one direction is out-dated. For example, California is probably 90% Democrat, 10% Republican... so maybe their EC votes should reflect that. Obviously, the same is very true for every state, but California is one of the most one-sided states in the country with a MASSIVE population. California is the main reason why the EC still needs to exist... otherwise they would determine everything for the entire country.

 

 

You do this and you might as well do popular vote. The disparity, as you pointed out is much greater in favor of Dems in these states. Let’s take Texas, give Hilary 43% of those electoral votes and it’s a landslide. It’s all good you right wingers want to keep it now because it benefits you. AZ and TX are turning you could win the whole Midwest sans ill and MN and in ten years it won’t matter. Get ready for blood baths every election in 10 years. TX will turn blue it is only a matter of time. I vote keep it so I can see the right crying about it in 2028. I wouldn’t be surprised if TX almost turns in 2020, the legal immigrants still don’t like seeing their people in cages illegal or not and will come out in force. Beto wins the primary and it is a wrap.

Edited by Jim2Dokes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

We all heard about how Hillary was going to win in a landslide. I sure thought she was because that's what the talking heads were saying. It all depends on who the DNC can put up. A middle of the road Democrat would do better than some of these crackpots that the DNC is trying to foist on the public. Trump has more of a chance in 2020 than he did in 2016. We've seen what he can do with an investigation hanging over his head. Country is doing alright. Of course, that could all change in a heartbeat.... which is what I think the left wants. We're all on this boat together.... might be a good idea to hope the captain keeps her afloat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Historically, the point of the electoral college was to allow southern states to gain the representation of 3/5 of their slaves without having to let them vote. So what is the point now?

 

Supporting the electoral college is to say that you don't like democracy. The fact that in 2 of the last 5 elections the person who got the most votes lost is a travesty.

 

It also makes most of the country irrelevant. How much do candidates campaign in Alabama or California? If you don't live in a swing state then you really don't matter to the politicians. Is that a good thing?

 

And this isn't a conservative/liberal thing. Political winds move in cycles, and 50 or so years ago it was the republicans who were getting screwed by the electoral college.

 

As to the big cities controlling everything, if they have the population, shouldn't they? Isn't that sort of how democracy is supposed to work, with majority rules? If you don't like what they choose, make the argument and change their minds, don't hide behind a set of rules that simply diminishes the importance of their vote.

 

One of the most childish and naive arguments for abolishing the EC I have ever read. Kill the Injuns...we should have the land because we are more civilized!

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the most childish and naive arguments for abolishing the EC I have ever read. Kill the Injuns...we should have the land because we are more civilized!

 

Huh? This dude laid out facts and you post this? Childish? Your speaking the jibberish language. He laid out actual facts on why the electoral was setup, facts you can’t argue them, because they are facts. Not Fox News, facts.

Edited by Jim2Dokes
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim,

We all heard about how Hillary was going to win in a landslide. I sure thought she was because that's what the talking heads were saying. It all depends on who the DNC can put up. A middle of the road Democrat would do better than some of these crackpots that the DNC is trying to foist on the public. Trump has more of a chance in 2020 than he did in 2016. We've seen what he can do with an investigation hanging over his head. Country is doing alright. Of course, that could all change in a heartbeat.... which is what I think the left wants. We're all on this boat together.... might be a good idea to hope the captain keeps her afloat.

 

Hilary did win in a landslide 3 million more votes. The country is doing alright because Trump hasn’t done **** and all of Obama’s moves are still in play mostly. Trade is an issue, lots have lost jobs and prices for goods are getting crazy right now. I do think he still has a chance, but I highly doubt that MI, PEnn, and WI turn for him this go round as the 2018 election pointed out. We are in this boat together it’s not my fault that most of this board wants to tip it over, to the right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You do this and you might as well do popular vote. The disparity, as you pointed out is much greater in favor of Dems in these states. Let’s take Texas, give Hilary 43% of those electoral votes and it’s a landslide. It’s all good you right wingers want to keep it now because it benefits you. AZ and TX are turning you could win the whole Midwest sans ill and MN and in ten years it won’t matter. Get ready for blood baths every election in 10 years. TX will turn blue it is only a matter of time. I vote keep it so I can see the right crying about it in 2028. I wouldn’t be surprised if TX almost turns in 2020, the legal immigrants still don’t like seeing their people in cages illegal or not and will come out in force. Beto wins the primary and it is a wrap.

 

huh? You are making a lot of assumptions and it seems you really have a bitter opinion of "right-wingers." TX will turn Dem only if they let illegal aliens vote. EC has benefitted both Dems and Reps in the past, but you have never heard of the Republicans calling for it to be abolished after losing.

 

illegals do not scare me one bit, for the US is simply playing nice, most countries, especially in the past, would use lethal force against thousands of people forcing their way in. The day illegals step-up with violence will be a bad day for them.

 

As a middle of the road type of guy, I see the Dems losing touch with their fanbase, they are moving too far left. They are making even a fool like Trump seem sane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
huh? You are making a lot of assumptions and it seems you really have a bitter opinion of "right-wingers." TX will turn Dem only if they let illegal aliens vote. EC has benefitted both Dems and Reps in the past, but you have never heard of the Republicans calling for it to be abolished after losing.

 

illegals do not scare me one bit, for the US is simply playing nice, most countries, especially in the past, would use lethal force against thousands of people forcing their way in. The day illegals step-up with violence will be a bad day for them.

 

As a middle of the road type of guy, I see the Dems losing touch with their fanbase, they are moving too far left. They are making even a fool like Trump seem sane.

 

We are talking about the electoral college, not your desire for people, mostly Catholics to be slaughtered. Anyways, my assumptions are based on actual data. Which states that the Latino pop in Texas will be the majority by 2022. Also, a large portion of the republican base, baby boomers etc dying off the voter rolls. I wasn’t saying anything about illegals voting, I was making the comment that while a good percentage of LEGAL Latinos voted republican in the past, that may not be true when they see people of their culture locked in cages.

To your other point, wrong again https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-college-votes-after-presidential-losses.amp

And

Trump tweet in 2012:

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy

Edited by Jim2Dokes
Link to post
Share on other sites
We are talking about the electoral college, not your desire for people, mostly Catholics to be slaughtered. Anyways, my assumptions are based on actual data. Which states that the Latino pop in Texas will be the majority by 2022. Also, gen x and a large portion of the republican base, baby boomers etc dying off the voter rolls. I wasn’t saying anything about illegals voting, I was making the comment that while a good percentage of LEGAL Latinos voted republican in the past, that may not be true when they see people of their culture locked in cages.

To your other point, wrong again https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-college-votes-after-presidential-losses.amp

And

Trump tweet in 2012:

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy

 

1. I am Catholic, so your first sentence is not only false, but quite problematic. I wont report you for this post, but make that accusation again and I will make it my personal mission to report you. Typical far leftist, taking what someone says and somehow making it a genocide. This is why the democratic party is going to lose in 2020, your feelings are so far left that it is starting to get scary, even moderate democrats (or people like me who voted for Obama twice) are going to steer clear of the crazy SJW nonsensical ideologies of the far-left.

2. I dont care about any Trump tweet, literally does nothing for me. Especially when Trump has been a "Republican" for only a few years now. I would say a tweet from 2012 is questionable on which side you are trying to use it to "attack."

3. Did you read the article or just the headline you posted? It literally says the same thing we were just talking about. Not all of the state's votes going one direction, but giving a voice to the minority of each state. That is not abolishing the Electoral College; now you can argue if that is a good thing or not, which you tried to do early, but that is not the same thing as abolishing it.

Edited by NDhoosier
Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I am Catholic, so your first sentence is not only false, but quite problematic. I wont report you for this post, but make that accusation again and I will make it my personal mission to report you. Typical far leftist, taking what someone says and somehow making it a genocide. This is why the democratic party is going to lose in 2020, your feelings are so far left that it is starting to get scary, even moderate democrats (or people like me who voted for Obama twice) are going to steer clear of the crazy SJW nonsensical ideologies of the far-left.

2. I dont care about any Trump tweet, literally does nothing for me. Especially when Trump has been a "Republican" for only a few years now. I would say a tweet from 2012 is questionable on which side you are trying to use it to "attack."

3. Did you read the article or just the headline you posted? It literally says the same thing we were just talking about. Not all of the state's votes going one direction, but giving a voice to the minority of each state. That is not abolishing the Electoral College; now you can argue if that is a good thing or not, which you tried to do early, but that is not the same thing as abolishing it.

 

Could careless if you report me. You are the one that started attacking illegal immigrants when we are discussing the electoral college basically saying they are lucky that they are not shot at the border for no context to the conversation. “illegals do not scare me one bit, for the US is simply playing nice, most countries, especially in the past, would use lethal force against thousands of people forcing their way in. The day illegals step-up with violence will be a bad day for them.”. 3. You said the right was not complaining about it, I provided direct evidence then when not in the favor they have complained about it. Back to the debate, again that route is find to split up the votes in a particular state, but it seems like either this will be in the lefts favor as the bigger states that favor the right do so by a very slim margin, giving the dems a significant advantage when they rake in large numbers from the east and west coast by having giant margins. Furthermore, I am not sure that strategy would be much different than the popular vote, that is way too much math for a message board convo. A quick glance of the Midwest Trump won PA, Mi, Oh, In and Wi. Hilary won MN and Illinois. Trump would gain 7 out of all these big electoral states. Would all the plains small states and SE be enough for Trump? Idk, but doesn’t look like it would. I am guessing that her margins in NJ, Mass, and NY would be enough to cancel 20 states Trump won, if Illinois almost cancels out 5.

Edited by Jim2Dokes
Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone living in Texas in the only city in the country with over 700,000 people that still votes Republican for President, it’s clear that Texas will turn blue in the next few years. Every major city in Texas (and Texas has 4 of the top 10 most populous cities in the country) votes Democrat but one.

But it’s not Latinos alone driving the change. Many Latinos are pretty conservative. I see that in my business every day. It has a lot to do with people moving here from everywhere else (US and other countries) to get jobs. They bring their politics with them, and the jobs are in the big cities. Smaller towns, like smaller towns in every state including New York and California, still vote Republican.

 

That’s true as well, it will be a combination of things. Younger voters that vote democratic getting older replacing the boomers on the voter rolls, increase in Latino population that will soon be the majority, and what you mentioned as Texas become more “hip” and tech and less oil based economy. A number of factors, it is going to happen sooner than later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Historically, the point of the electoral college was to allow southern states to gain the representation of 3/5 of their slaves without having to let them vote. So what is the point now?

 

Supporting the electoral college is to say that you don't like democracy. The fact that in 2 of the last 5 elections the person who got the most votes lost is a travesty.

 

It also makes most of the country irrelevant. How much do candidates campaign in Alabama or California? If you don't live in a swing state then you really don't matter to the politicians. Is that a good thing?

 

And this isn't a conservative/liberal thing. Political winds move in cycles, and 50 or so years ago it was the republicans who were getting screwed by the electoral college.

 

As to the big cities controlling everything, if they have the population, shouldn't they? Isn't that sort of how democracy is supposed to work, with majority rules? If you don't like what they choose, make the argument and change their minds, don't hide behind a set of rules that simply diminishes the importance of their vote.

 

Slaves were never allowed to vote and the 3/5 were not counted as votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
I see California and Illinois are processing legislation in their state houses to keep Trump off the ballots in '20 unless he releases the last five years of tax returns. Can't make this stuff up.

 

I think because Trump does as he pleases so it has started with people/states doing whatever they believe they can do. Like Trump or not, he has started a **** storm in Washington. I hate to see it because when Dems finally take office you better believe they will start acting a petulant child too. Trump lied 10,000 times in the open, Dems will lie 10,001. What a mess our country has become in that regard. Maybe it’s always been this way....I don’t know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think because Trump does as he pleases so it has started with people/states doing whatever they believe they can do. Like Trump or not, he has started a **** storm in Washington. I hate to see it because when Dems finally take office you better believe they will start acting a petulant child too. Trump lied 10,000 times in the open, Dems will lie 10,001. What a mess our country has become in that regard. Maybe it’s always been this way....I don’t know.

 

Pretty sure Obama started the "Do whatever you want attitude" when he was picking and choosing what laws he wanted to enforce or how to justify it unconstitutionally...

 

As a tax person, I'll tell you this. Trump's tax returns won't tell you sh*t that is applicable to the Presidency, especially now that he has a resume of Presidential acts. I mean, his economy is smashing everything Democrats like Obama and his "economists" said couldn't be done. Why? Because Democrats love to give people scraps to ensure they stay in power. They know that if they grow the economy too quickly it will 1) undermine their liberal antagonism of corporations, etc, and 2) it will ultimately stop growing which is a political liability as the economy maximizes all of its potential. Democrats see that as a bad thing... Trump's economy is common sense.

 

Yes, I agree he's unprofessional as sh*t, but he's making progress in a lot of in the areas that truly matter to people trying to take care of their families. All the liberal social ideals will naturally follow in a good economy. In a crap economy, nobody cares about liberal social ideals - they just want to make sure they can feed their families. It's all right in front of them, but Dems seem to get in their own way...hell, look at AOC and Amazon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...