g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,905
- 92,877
- 2,605
I cannot believe how obtuse you are being.
Yes, it is pop distribution, and politicians will go where the densest populations are! Duh!
Leftists Are You Still Eliminating The Electoral College Or Did That Fade Away Like The ***** Hats?
- Thread starter Jimmy_Chitwood
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hag
I cannot believe how obtuse you are being.
Yes, it is pop distribution, and politicians will go where the densest populations are! Duh!
mdk
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2014
- 40,558
- 14,048
- 2,630
That the EC is a disaster!? lol
I cannot believe how obtuse you are being.
Yes, it is pop distribution, and politicians will go where the densest populations are! Duh!
----which DOES NOT mean they will automatically get those votes, just because they went there. Non sequitur.
For a ready and obvious example let's take Rump himself. Who in the world can possibly be more identified with the city of New York? Born and raised in Queens and Brooklyn. Lives opulently and loudly in Manhattan. Has his name splashed all over town like a grand porn movie money shot. Been campaigning for himself for four decades to anyone who will listen in every conceivable medium. Went back there on breaks between campaigns, used it for major announcements. Came right out and said directly: "You’ll never get more of a New Yorker for president than you’re getting with me”.
Given all this he should have absolutely smothered any competition, right? Let's check the numbers (source)
Queens -- less than 22% of the vote
Brooklyn -- less that 18%
Manhattan --- less than 10%. In his own back yard.
Got smothered by a gal from Chicaaawgo.
There's a map at the link (zoomable) that won't post here. Check out Staten Island.
Did Rump campaign in Staten Island? I can find one time, and that was for the state primary.
It would seem the proximity effect ...... doesn't really work.
Again, can't address the question in 46?
I can.
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau making campaign stops in Yellowknife, Iqaluit
Last edited:
mdk
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2014
- 40,558
- 14,048
- 2,630
Which wasn't what he said, but whatever.
jillian
Princess
what are you talking about moron? there is a process to amending the constitution.
which, of course, doesn't mean that some loser in North Dakota should have a vote worth 700 of mine.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Bullshit. One person, one vote. They still get the same amount of representatives in the Senate that California does despite representing far fewer voters.
The reasons for the EC simply no longer exist. We don't all wait weeks for news to reach us in rural areas.
jillian
Princess
those weren't his words....
Markle
Diamond Member
Imagine how few unfunded mandates would be passed on to the individual states if the Senators were responsible to their state legislatures rather than running for reelection to represent the people, same as the House of Representatives. Today, no one represents the states.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.
One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.[...]
Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.[...]
In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late 18th and early 19th century, Americans should ask themselves whether we want to maintain this odd—dare I say peculiar?—institution in the 21st century.
Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.
One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.[...]
Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.[...]
In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late 18th and early 19th century, Americans should ask themselves whether we want to maintain this odd—dare I say peculiar?—institution in the 21st century.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,905
- 92,877
- 2,605
I once started a topic about the 17th amendment.
Here: Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment
Keep in mind that was written four years ago, before the GOP gained control of the Senate.
It's good if you want only one party representation.
Markle
Diamond Member
In what state do you live? How is their vote worth 700 of yours?
Markle
Diamond Member
Really, one of the most foolish statements on this thread. And that's going quite a ways!
Jimmy_Chitwood
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #99
I am talking about how only after The Hag & Co. lost did the electoral college suddenly become a problem that needed fixed.
Sadly I fear you are correct. Witness the recent posts crying the blues about so-called "RINO" Senators from Maine, Alaska, West Virginia, Ohio and Louisiana, posted by posters who are not residents of Maine, Alaska, West Virginia, Ohio or Louisiana, declaring they must be 'replaced'. We actually have a population walking among us who believe Senators (and presumably Congresscritters) are there to represent a lockstep political party and not to represent the people of Maine, Alaska, West Virginia, Ohio, Louisiana or whatever state, as is plainly and clearly stated in the Constitution.
And the Congresscritters themselves pander to the same mentality. It should actually be irrelevant what a Congressional candidate's personal views are on any issue. What should be relevant is how responsive they are to their constituents, since that's actually who they work for, and how well they can argue on their behalf in Congress.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
a story behind of this video? what can we say about orcs moral level in 2026?- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
Trump has put us closer to WWIII (and in a nuclear basis) than any other President ever has.- Started by Luckyone
- Replies: 1
-
Hakeem Jeffries Worries ICE Will Kill People in Airports- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 1
-
Tucker Carlson Smacks Down Interviewer on Israel's "Right to Exist": Does Lebanon? Does Gaza?- Started by munkle
- Replies: 6
