New DNC President Demostrates Democrats Spew Ignorance and Lies (Electoral College)

[Leo123]

One person one vote was established to equalize voting power within States. Challenges have been made over the years but SCOTUS upheld its original decision. The electoral college is another issue.

"The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."

In Defense of the Electoral College

Do you understand it is unfair to have a President elected by LA & New York? That would disenfranchise most of geographic America.

That's not even my point. An election should represent all the people, no matter where they are from. So in other words, just because you happen to live in a more populous state your vote should mean less to say, somebody living in Delaware? You guys talk about the tyranny of the majority. What about the tyranny of the minority?

In order to represent 'all people' all regions need to have equal representation not just the few most populous states. OK then, why should a minority of populous States have tyrannical rule over less populous States? Maybe you don't realize that LA and NY are mostly Democrat. Why should one party have such an advantage? Shouldn't a President represent ALL the United States and not just two cities in two States? Did you read the excerpt I gave you? Do you understand 'transregional appeal.?' That is what Trump had and remember he went to areas that were thought he could never win and campaigned there. Hillary avoided areas where she was either not popular or thought she would win hands down. That is why she lost.

 

[Dr Grump]

In order to represent 'all people' all regions need to have equal representation not just the few most populous states. OK then, why should a minority of populous States have tyrannical rule over less populous States? Maybe you don't realize that LA and NY are mostly Democrat. Why should one party have such an advantage? Shouldn't a President represent ALL the United States and not just two cities in two States? Did you read the excerpt I gave you? Do you understand 'transregional appeal.?' That is what Trump had and remember he went to areas that were thought he could never win and campaigned there. Hillary avoided areas where she was either not popular or thought she would win hands down. That is why she lost.

I think the EC should be proportional to the number of people in each state. Currently it is not. Texas is mostly GoP. And? That is not the point. Isn't it interesting that you talk about trans regional appeal as opposed to a party's policies, which is what really matters. Now it's about the win, not what is best for the people. California and NY combined will never win the presidency anyway. Why should a culmination of little states whose EC votes are worth more have more of a say?

As I said, the US system sucks. One of the worst in the western world IMO. Not only because of the EC, but because it is a two-party state. I won't even go into the point there is a total lack of compromise by either party.

 

[Leo123]

I think the EC should be proportional to the number of people in each state. Currently it is not. Texas is mostly GoP. And? That is not the point. Isn't it interesting that you talk about trans regional appeal as opposed to a party's policies, which is what really matters. Now it's about the win, not what is best for the people. California and NY combined will never win the presidency anyway. Why should a culmination of little states whose EC votes are worth more have more of a say?

The EC is proportional to State voting districts and the population density. I never claimed that transregional appeal should be opposed to a party's platform. In fact the more transregional a party's platform is the more likely its electors will get votes. The EC seeks to equalize less populated States with highly populated States. I thought we already went over that.

As I said, the US system sucks. One of the worst in the western world IMO. Not only because of the EC, but because it is a two-party state. I won't even go into the point there is a total lack of compromise by either party.

Yeah I know your opinion so what? You have not proven your point.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dr Grump]

The EC is proportional to State voting districts and the population density. I never claimed that transregional appeal should be opposed to a party's platform. In fact the more transregional a party's platform is the more likely its electors will get votes. The EC seeks to equalize less populated States with highly populated States. I thought we already went over that.

Yeah I know your opinion so what? You have not proven your point.

I have explained this many times on this board, but I'll go through it again. Take Nebraska vs California. If you take out both the Senatorial EC votes in both states, California has 53 EC votes and Nebraska has 3. Neb has 1.9 million people. One EC vote in Neb represents 633,000 people. Cali has just over 39 million people. One EC vote in Cali represents 740,000 people. In order for Cali vote to have equal weight it would need 62 EC votes. That would be fair.

Also, I think Maine divides its EC votes up by who voted for who. It is not a winner takes all approach. Again, this is more fair to the people.

And why should the lower popular states lord it over the bigger states? Isn't a system of equal representation via the EC fair to all?

 

[Leo123]

The EC is proportional to State voting districts and the population density. I never claimed that transregional appeal should be opposed to a party's platform. In fact the more transregional a party's platform is the more likely its electors will get votes. The EC seeks to equalize less populated States with highly populated States. I thought we already went over that.

Yeah I know your opinion so what? You have not proven your point.

I have explained this many times on this board, but I'll go through it again. Take Nebraska vs California. If you take out both the Senatorial EC votes in both states, California has 53 EC votes and Nebraska has 3. Neb has 1.9 million people. One EC vote in Neb represents 633,000 people. Cali has just over 39 million people. One EC vote in Cali represents 740,000 people. In order for Cali vote to have equal weight it would need 62 EC votes. That would be fair.

Also, I think Maine divides its EC votes up by who voted for who. It is not a winner takes all approach. Again, this is more fair to the people.

And why should the lower popular states lord it over the bigger states? Isn't a system of equal representation via the EC fair to all?

I already explained it to you but you don't seem to comprehend. A straight popular vote would disenfranchise States with lower population density and the thrust (according to the founders) is to equalize U.S. regions because you cannot discount Geography. You seem to be hung up on population density and that is not what was envisioned by the Founders. You don't seem to see the other side. A straight popular vote would be unfair in areas of lower population density and who is to say that less populated areas are worth less to the Republic? Why should they always be ruled by distant, large metropolitan areas?

You do know that in the U.S. the popular vote usually agrees with the EC don't you? It is pretty rare that the EC wins but, when it does, it is definitely a message to Washington that it's time to pull back from the precipice.

 

[Dr Grump]

The EC is proportional to State voting districts and the population density. I never claimed that transregional appeal should be opposed to a party's platform. In fact the more transregional a party's platform is the more likely its electors will get votes. The EC seeks to equalize less populated States with highly populated States. I thought we already went over that.

Yeah I know your opinion so what? You have not proven your point.

I have explained this many times on this board, but I'll go through it again. Take Nebraska vs California. If you take out both the Senatorial EC votes in both states, California has 53 EC votes and Nebraska has 3. Neb has 1.9 million people. One EC vote in Neb represents 633,000 people. Cali has just over 39 million people. One EC vote in Cali represents 740,000 people. In order for Cali vote to have equal weight it would need 62 EC votes. That would be fair.

Also, I think Maine divides its EC votes up by who voted for who. It is not a winner takes all approach. Again, this is more fair to the people.

And why should the lower popular states lord it over the bigger states? Isn't a system of equal representation via the EC fair to all?

I already explained it to you but you don't seem to comprehend. A straight popular vote would disenfranchise States with lower population density and the thrust (according to the founders) is to equalize U.S. regions because you cannot discount Geography. You seem to be hung up on population density and that is not what was envisioned by the Founders. You don't seem to see the other side. A straight popular vote would be unfair in areas of lower population density and who is to say that less populated areas are worth less to the Republic? Why should they always be ruled by distant, large metropolitan areas?

You do know that in the U.S. the popular vote usually agrees with the EC don't you? It is pretty rare that the EC wins but, when it does, it is definitely a message to Washington that it's time to pull back from the precipice.

Um, I'm not asking for a straight popular vote. Where have I said that. I'm asking for proportional representation of sorts. Not a straight vote. In fact, I hate FPP systems....

You seem to be obsessed that the smaller states have more of a say than their bigger state counterparts. Why should they? Have an equal say, sure. But more? No. Not fair. Not right in any way, shape or form. You are basically penalising somebody for where they live which is a shitty thing to do and not morally right. Why should a farmer in Nebraska's vote be more important than an accountant in Los Angeles? That is elitist. Something the framers (even though they only allowed certain men to vote and some were slave owners) claimed was the very thing they were fighting Great Britain over.

 

[Leo123]

Um, I'm not asking for a straight popular vote. Where have I said that. I'm asking for proportional representation of sorts. Not a straight vote. In fact, I hate FPP systems....

You seem to be obsessed that the smaller states have more of a say than their bigger state counterparts. Why should they? Have an equal say, sure. But more? No. Not fair. Not right in any way, shape or form. You are basically penalising somebody for where they live which is a shitty thing to do and not morally right. Why should a farmer in Nebraska's vote be more important than an accountant in Los Angeles? That is elitist. Something the framers (even though they only allowed certain men to vote and some were slave owners) claimed was the very thing they were fighting Great Britain over.

OK but just because States with lower population have more votes per Elector doesn't mean equality doesn't exist. Is it that you just don't like the fact that there are more votes per elector in sparsely populated areas? If so...what you seem to be unaware of is that...That is exactly what makes things fair across geographic America. And you still have not commented on the fact that were it not for the EC, highly populated cities would have an unfair advantage. Also I told you that the EC is fair because typically the EC agrees with the popular vote. When it doesn't there is a good reason. Like I already told you.

OR is your point that rural areas should have FEWER votes per EC? Maybe I'm not understanding your position. I appreciate our chat BTW.

 

[Dr Grump]

OK but just because States with lower population have more votes per Elector doesn't mean equality doesn't exist. Is it that you just don't like the fact that there are more votes per elector in sparsely populated areas? If so...what you seem to be unaware of is that...That is exactly what makes things fair across geographic America. And you still have not commented on the fact that were it not for the EC, highly populated cities would have an unfair advantage. Also I told you that the EC is fair because typically the EC agrees with the popular vote. When it doesn't there is a good reason. Like I already told you.

OR is your point that rural areas should have FEWER votes per EC? Maybe I'm not understanding your position. I appreciate our chat BTW.

I disagree. I don't hink it does exist if one state has an advantage over another. And I wouldn't have thought geography matters. Taking it to the nth degree. One state has 10 people another has 10 million. The people with 10 people has, say 3 EC votes. The one with 10 million has 15. The EC vote in the 10-person state has much more of an advantage and is much better represented. I'm not too concerned about the popular vote. Where I live we use MMP so popular vote is part of it but not the be-all and end-all. I just think the EC opens up to being inherently unfair to one party or another when it could easily be fixed by offering proportional representation, or even splitting the votes within a state. Currently if you are a Repub in Cali or NY or a Dem living in Texas your vote is pointless.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Tom Perez is a retard.

 

[Slyhunter]

If you did one man one vote what would prevent the smaller states from succeeding because they don't get a say in our elections?

Why should smaller states have a say in a popular election? He's the President of the United State, not the Flyover states.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Leo123]

OK but just because States with lower population have more votes per Elector doesn't mean equality doesn't exist. Is it that you just don't like the fact that there are more votes per elector in sparsely populated areas? If so...what you seem to be unaware of is that...That is exactly what makes things fair across geographic America. And you still have not commented on the fact that were it not for the EC, highly populated cities would have an unfair advantage. Also I told you that the EC is fair because typically the EC agrees with the popular vote. When it doesn't there is a good reason. Like I already told you.

OR is your point that rural areas should have FEWER votes per EC? Maybe I'm not understanding your position. I appreciate our chat BTW.

I disagree. I don't hink it does exist if one state has an advantage over another. And I wouldn't have thought geography matters. Taking it to the nth degree. One state has 10 people another has 10 million. The people with 10 people has, say 3 EC votes. The one with 10 million has 15. The EC vote in the 10-person state has much more of an advantage and is much better represented. I'm not too concerned about the popular vote. Where I live we use MMP so popular vote is part of it but not the be-all and end-all. I just think the EC opens up to being inherently unfair to one party or another when it could easily be fixed by offering proportional representation, or even splitting the votes within a state. Currently if you are a Repub in Cali or NY or a Dem living in Texas your vote is pointless.

Why don't you think geography matters when clearly the Founders did? Of course it matters!! That's where our natural resources, our farm land, etc. exist. I have heard others call it 'dirt' or 'just trees' which is, IMO, a tragically myopic and insulting view of a large segment of the country. Your assumption that the EC is unfair flies in the face of the reality that in most Presidential elections, the EC and popular vote agree. But I get it....Trump won and a lot of ignorant folks just don't understand how he got elected. After all, it 'should have been Hillary' they say. Because she won the 'popular' vote. Now we have people like you wanting to parse the EC. Just give it up already...Trump won fair and square.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why don't you think geography matters when clearly the Founders did? Of course it matters!! That's where our natural resources, our farm land, etc. exist. I have heard others call it 'dirt' or 'just trees' which is, IMO, a tragically myopic and insulting view of a large segment of the country. Your assumption that the EC is unfair flies in the face of the reality that in most Presidential elections, the EC and popular vote agree. But I get it....Trump won and a lot of ignorant folks just don't understand how he got elected. After all, it 'should have been Hillary' they say. Because she won the 'popular' vote. Now we have people like you wanting to parse the EC. Just give it up already...Trump won fair and square.

Right. So just because you live in country areas your vote should be worth more? That is what you are essentially saying. How am I insulting people by demanding that their vote be the equal of all others.

And no, I was a critic of the EC long before Trump got the vote. I've been on this board for over 10 years. Have had this argument when Bush jnr was in power and Obama.

It is very easy to see how he got elected. Doesn't make the system any better.

 

[Leo123]

Right. So just because you live in country areas your vote should be worth more?

It's not a matter of more it's a matter of geographic equality. You never answered me....I will ask you again...Why should LA and NY represent geographic U.S.? Just because they have a higher population density doesn't mean they are any more valuable than arable land.

That is what you are essentially saying. How am I insulting people by demanding that their vote be the equal of all others.

You discount the contribution of more rural land. All you care about is population density. America is about more than that as I already explained to you while you totally ignored what I said to beat the same old dead horse.

And no, I was a critic of the EC long before Trump got the vote. I've been on this board for over 10 years. Have had this argument when Bush jnr was in power and Obama.

It is very easy to see how he got elected. Doesn't make the system any better.

Well good for you, you're still wrong. I don't care how long you've been here

 

[Dr Grump]

[

It's not a matter of more it's a matter of geographic equality. You never answered me....I will ask you again...Why should LA and NY represent geographic U.S.? Just because they have a higher population density doesn't mean they are any more valuable than arable land.

You discount the contribution of more rural land. All you care about is population density. America is about more than that as I already explained to you while you totally ignored what I said to beat the same old dead horse.

Well good for you, you're still wrong. I don't care how long you've been here

We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here. I'm not discounting anything. I think the rural and city vote should be of equal value. You don't agree for whatever reason.

Wrong about what?

 

[Papageorgio]

It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.

There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.

It is a form of democracy. Your last point is on the money. However, some have better forms of govt than others.

A form of democracy, correct, however we are a republic, the systems has work well for America for over 200 years.

I don’t mind the Electoral College, it works well in protecting the minorities. We are a country of 50 states with diverse wants and needs, what works well in one area doesn’t work well in another, the system in place helps keep large state over riding the interest of smaller states.

 

[Leo123]

We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here. I'm not discounting anything. I think the rural and city vote should be of equal value. You don't agree for whatever reason.

Wrong about what?

Rural and city votes would not be of equal value in a straight popular vote. City votes would be intrinsically be worth more. That is why we have the EC.

 

[Dr Grump]

We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here. I'm not discounting anything. I think the rural and city vote should be of equal value. You don't agree for whatever reason.

Wrong about what?

Rural and city votes would not be of equal value in a straight popular vote. City votes would be intrinsically be worth more. That is why we have the EC.

I get that. That doesn't address my point.

 

[Dr Grump]

It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.

There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.

It is a form of democracy. Your last point is on the money. However, some have better forms of govt than others.

A form of democracy, correct, however we are a republic, the systems has work well for America for over 200 years.

I don’t mind the Electoral College, it works well in protecting the minorities. We are a country of 50 states with diverse wants and needs, what works well in one area doesn’t work well in another, the system in place helps keep large state over riding the interest of smaller states.

Does it though? At the end of the day, with regard to the EC, only about three or four states really matter. Penn, Ohio, Florida....

 

[Papageorgio]

It is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

If we were a democracy, gay marriage would be illegal, discrimination would be legal. We are 50 separate and individual states, that are represented. Every state gets a voice. That is why states rights are so important.

There is no country in the world that operates under a true democracy.

It is a form of democracy. Your last point is on the money. However, some have better forms of govt than others.

A form of democracy, correct, however we are a republic, the systems has work well for America for over 200 years.

I don’t mind the Electoral College, it works well in protecting the minorities. We are a country of 50 states with diverse wants and needs, what works well in one area doesn’t work well in another, the system in place helps keep large state over riding the interest of smaller states.

Does it though? At the end of the day, with regard to the EC, only about three or four states really matter. Penn, Ohio, Florida....

It does, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Virginia Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, all were up for grabs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr Grump]

It does, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Virginia Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, all were up for grabs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So less than a third of the states matter. And I would argue out of the 16 you have named Nevada, Maine, Utah, New Hampshire and Arizona are irrelevant. So about 1/5 matter.