Lefties Like Diversity, So This Is Why The Popular Vote Doesn't Win Elections

[Silhouette]

The Popular Vote kills diversity. And you know how liberals feel about oppressing diversity...

Here's how elections work and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and why the system was set up the way it is. Most people live concentrated in a few states, mainly along coastlines. The FFs realized that if just the popular vote were taken into account, the other states would always suffer their unique interests slaughtered at the will of the more populated ones. Get that concept? From there, if the popular vote reigned supreme, the "Flyover" states and those who wanted a unique culture they themselves defined would be diluted to the point of just being a territory of the dominating coastal states. Sovereign states didn't/don't want the power of their own self-governance taken away. If the popular vote reigns supreme, the US would simply just be one giant territory without any unique individual states eventually....the power of the "Flyover states" so diluted as to not even make them matter anymore as unique societies to themselves.

Now, that may appeal to you since you may be one of the fascists who want a one-world thought process. But diversity is a nation's strength, yes? Libs may argue that on another platform. But when it comes to diversity of THOUGHT and OPINION and individuals determining their own unique destiny, THAT is where libs would draw the line and cry "but we won the popular vote!!!".

The FFs were smart. They realized how when herds get big they sometimes stampede if not checked by a few old-school cutting dogs. This is why ALL 50 states have EQUAL power in the Senate. And it's why the electoral college exists; even it is a compromise to the "population density" issue. So, take your gains and shut your mouth about taking away what little power still rests with states who have thinner populations.

 

[Toronado3800]

The Popular Vote kills diversity. And you know how liberals feel about oppressing diversity...

Here's how elections work and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and why the system was set up the way it is. Most people live concentrated in a few states, mainly along coastlines. The FFs realized that if just the popular vote were taken into account, the other states would always suffer their unique interests slaughtered at the will of the more populated ones. Get that concept? From there, if the popular vote reigned supreme, the "Flyover" states and those who wanted a unique culture they themselves defined would be diluted to the point of just being a territory of the dominating coastal states. Sovereign states didn't/don't want the power of their own self-governance taken away. If the popular vote reigns supreme, the US would simply just be one giant territory without any unique individual states eventually....the power of the "Flyover states" so diluted as to not even make them matter anymore as unique societies to themselves.

Now, that may appeal to you since you may be one of the fascists who want a one-world thought process. But diversity is a nation's strength, yes? Libs may argue that on another platform. But when it comes to diversity of THOUGHT and OPINION and individuals determining their own unique destiny, THAT is where libs would draw the line and cry "but we won the popular vote!!!".

The FFs were smart. They realized how when herds get big they sometimes stampede if not checked by a few old-school cutting dogs. This is why ALL 50 states have EQUAL power in the Senate. And it's why the electoral college exists; even it is a compromise to the "population density" issue. So, take your gains and shut your mouth about taking away what little power still rests with states who have thinner populations.

I THINK it balances geography and population and I feel no need to change it.

Your name calling is interesting though and will paint a color over everything you claim in any other post for the rest of your life. You should be more subtle.

 

[candycorn]

Factually incorrect.

 

[Silhouette]

Factually incorrect.

How so?

 

[candycorn]

Factually incorrect.

How so?

The popular vote does not kill diversity. If we had gone by the popular vote alone we would have had a black man elected twice followed by a female in the last 3 elections.

As for geographic diversity, since 1970...the areas of the nation represented as President;

West-Nixon
South-Carter
West-Reagan
South-Bush 1 & 2
South-Clinton
Midwest-Obama
East-the blob

Every state except Clinton (AR) and Obama (IL) were coastal large population states so the Electoral College doesn’t imply any sort of diversity.

 

[Silhouette]

Well how do you feel about each state having 2 Senators?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

The Popular Vote kills diversity. And you know how liberals feel about oppressing diversity...

Here's how elections work and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and why the system was set up the way it is. Most people live concentrated in a few states, mainly along coastlines. The FFs realized that if just the popular vote were taken into account, the other states would always suffer their unique interests slaughtered at the will of the more populated ones. Get that concept? From there, if the popular vote reigned supreme, the "Flyover" states and those who wanted a unique culture they themselves defined would be diluted to the point of just being a territory of the dominating coastal states. Sovereign states didn't/don't want the power of their own self-governance taken away. If the popular vote reigns supreme, the US would simply just be one giant territory without any unique individual states eventually....the power of the "Flyover states" so diluted as to not even make them matter anymore as unique societies to themselves.

Now, that may appeal to you since you may be one of the fascists who want a one-world thought process. But diversity is a nation's strength, yes? Libs may argue that on another platform. But when it comes to diversity of THOUGHT and OPINION and individuals determining their own unique destiny, THAT is where libs would draw the line and cry "but we won the popular vote!!!".

The FFs were smart. They realized how when herds get big they sometimes stampede if not checked by a few old-school cutting dogs. This is why ALL 50 states have EQUAL power in the Senate. And it's why the electoral college exists; even it is a compromise to the "population density" issue. So, take your gains and shut your mouth about taking away what little power still rests with states who have thinner populations.

I THINK it balances geography and population and I feel no need to change it.

Your name calling is interesting though and will paint a color over everything you claim in any other post for the rest of your life. You should be more subtle.

Geography is not a citizen and incapable of voting.
There needs to be a balance, all right.
A state like Wyoming with less than 2 million people should not have the same number of senators as California, with 40M people.
That's NOT representation.
.
.

 

[Silhouette]

A state like Wyoming with less than 2 million people should not have the same number of senators as California, with 40M people.
That's NOT representation.
.
.

The House O’ Representin’ is the one that goes by population.

I actually thank God that California only has 2 Senators. Can you imagine CA weilding the same power over the other 49 states as it does its own people? Read my signature.