Wish Kasich would just switch parties and get it over with

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the working class underpaid people that make the big bucks for the Ill repute ceos who absolutely hate those workers. It's in some folks blood to side with the ceos. Hence we are it in the posts. The sad fact is most all companies do not like their employees...fact I stake everything I have on.

This gets more and more true every day. The bigger the company the more they hate the people doing the actual work to make their widget!

All this hate and not one iota of evidence to support it.

I work it all the time bro.

Oh, then I am convinced. Such a good argument.

 

[Aldo Raine]

It's the working class underpaid people that make the big bucks for the Ill repute ceos who absolutely hate those workers. It's in some folks blood to side with the ceos. Hence we are it in the posts. The sad fact is most all companies do not like their employees...fact I stake everything I have on.

This gets more and more true every day. The bigger the company the more they hate the people doing the actual work to make their widget!

All this hate and not one iota of evidence to support it.

I work it all the time bro.

Oh, then I am convinced. Such a good argument.

Well jr. I left a job in cove point maryland last year at this time were they gave us 1 30 minute break in a 10 hr day. They also dictated when they could give us that break. Shift started at 7 am and the soonest our crew got a break was at 145 pm. That is the highlight of the experience, our break area was a connex box with no power. So in the 90 degree heat the break area was about 105 to 115 degrees. Now that sure is great treatment for the people that are building their project. I know YOU would agree because you are a company suck ass.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay Ray, let's try this. Why don't people vote for a third party? Is it because they don't want a third party, or is it because the system doesn't allow for it?

I've told you before, under the German system where they vote FPTP and PR on the same day, 10% of people switch their votes from the large parties under FPTP to smaller parties under PR. Why is that? Is it that they don't want a third party? No, it's the when you have a FPTP type system, you think "only these two stand a chance of winning, I don't want that one to win, so I'm going to vote for this one instead, even though I don't like them that much", but under PR they're like "hey, I like this party, I'll vote for them"

FPTP encourages NEGATIVE voting. PR encourages POSITIVE voting.

Exclusive: Top reason Americans will vote for Trump: 'To stop Clinton' - poll

"Exclusive: Top reason Americans will vote for Trump: 'To stop Clinton' - poll"

"Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday."

This isn't a case of people just voting who they wanted to vote for. People didn't want to vote Hillary or Trump in the US election. They'd have prefered someone else, but they got to choose who the people in the parties wanted to choose and felt they had no choice but to choose which one they didn't want.

And you've just given the BIGGEST reason for having PR, people feel that a 3rd party vote is a waste of time. In Germany this isn't the case, in almost all countries with PR this isn't the case. You have PR, you don't have to feel a vote for a 3rd party is a waste of time.

I don't know what a PR is or what it does, nor an FPTP, but we've been voting the same way for centuries and that's never going to change. If people get pissed enough at one party or the other, they will (on their own) vote for a similar party. Look for that to happen with the Republicans if Congress keeps stopping Trump from his agenda. With the Trump victory, the Republicans (particularly the establishment Republicans) haven't yet figured out their constituents are pissed off about nothing getting done when we put them in power.

I've always called the Democrat party the party of excuses, but I'm beginning to think it applies to both.

Ray, do you know what it's like talking to someone who thinks they have all the answers, then it turns out they don't actually know what anything is? It's kind of frustrating.

PR is Proportional Representation. This is one person one vote with each vote being worth the same. FPTP is First Past The Post, it's what the US has. Whoever gets the most votes wins the seat. It happens in most elections. In the Presidential election some states will distribute their electoral college votes based on who votes what, but most stick with FPTP.

Yes, the US has been voting the same way for a while. It's not going to change? Well, actually it has changed. But is your argument that there should be no change because it's been around for a while? That's a pretty lame argument.

No, actually if people get pissed at one party, they're more likely to not vote, because like you said, what's the point of voting third party?

You seem to be ignoring the FACTS.

Like I said, 10% of people in Germany change their votes. Now, you have no idea what PR and FPTP are. You couldn't even be ******* bothered to do a simple search on the internet to find out, and your arguments are ******* lame as hell.

Let's face the facts Ray, you couldn't give a ****. You only care that the system is biased towards your way of thinking, and so you don't want to change the system. Don't bullshit me with other lame arguments, because I can see through that shit. Just be honest for once. You don't have a clue about electoral systems and you don't want to know because you don't care about people have a fair vote, you just want to win.

The EC is the fairest way to vote. It insures that everybody has a horse in the race. After all, you vote for a President based on what he's going to do for the people, but that can easily be extended to land as well.

So much like the reason every state has two Senators equally, we have to give some leverage to low populated states, otherwise they are not even worth pandering to to get votes from the candidates, and our major cities and more populated states would have control over the entire country.

No Ray it's not the fairest. Under no circumstances can anyone say it's the fairest. Like I told you, you're interested in one thing.

Everyone doesn't have a horse in the race Ray, it's quite clear that only 12 states have a horse in the race. And seeing how you don't understand other political systems, it seems a little rich that you're telling me it's the fairest system.

So basically what you're writing is bullshit because you have no idea if it's the fairest system.

Of course it's the fairest system. What could be more fair than the EC?

The Electoral College gives a politician a need to pander to less populated states just like they pander to larger more populated areas. The more populated states still have the upper hand, but at the very least the less populated states are not totally overlooked.

Well, seeing as you don't know about any other systems, how can you even say this? It's typical of people on forums like this, think they know everything, but know nothing.

But I'll try and educate you.

The EC isn't fair because:

A) It gives more power of votes to people in smaller states. This is inherently unfair.
B) It gives more power of votes to people in swing states. This is inherently unfair.

If you live in Hawaii and you vote Republican, your vote is a waste vote. 62.22% of people voted for Hillary. The highest (except for DC) that Hillary got. Hawaii always votes Democrat, so Republicans votes simple aren't even worth counting. It's not FAIR for Republicans in Hawaii. Their voice isn't heard, no one cares about them.

If you live in West Virginia, Trump's highest (except 3rd in Nebraska) then your vote is a waste of time too.

In fact there are only 12 states in the US where is really actually any point in turning out to vote. Your president doesn't get decided by your vote. Screw you, **** off, you don't choose.

Also, a president can win with less votes, this isn't the will of the people, it's the will of the system. It also tells presidential candidates to attack swing states and ignore strong states. Meaning that Hawaii and West Virginia get nothing. It doesn't matter what you do.

136.6 million people voted in the presidential election.

The states that mattered were
Nevada, 1 million votes.
Colorado 1.3 million votes
Iowa 1.45 million votes
Minnesota 1.7 million votes
Wisconsin 1.8 million votes
Michigan 2.5 million votes
Ohio 3 million votes
Pennsylvania 5.8 million votes
New Hampshire 700,000 votes
Virginia 3.7 million votes
North Carolina 4.4 million votes
Florida 9 million votes

Add these up together you get about 28.2 million people. That's less than 21% of the vote. Yes, less than 21% of people in the US decide the US election. Everyone else's vote is out of the window, who cares?


In Germany with PR they have a 5% run off, this means if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% your vote is a waste of time.

44 million people votes in 2009 federal election in Germany. 41.7 million votes therefore decided who would be in parliament and 2.3 million votes were out of the window. That's 95% of the voters.


Now, you're trying to tell me that a system which has 95% of voters getting to choose their govt is better than 21%? I think you're bullshitting me.


Also, in Germany there were 6 parties that got into parliament. That means that people got to CHOOSE between 6 parties, whereas in the US it was TWO parties. You're telling me this is fairer?

No, you're wrong. And as long as you have your head so far up your partisan ass, you'll be wrong until the cows come home.

 

[Mac1958]

I keep finding myself saying, "okay, this has to be it, this has to be that point where both parties have become so repulsive that AT LEAST one new viable, national party has to emerge".

I'm beginning to run out of hope for that. We just keep allowing this to go on.
.

There is hope:
GOP senator: Bipartisan health care bill in 10 days - CNNPolitics
The problem is the far right.

I know, it's always the other side's fault.

And there's the problem.
.

Cmon man. Only one side is holding up fixing this.

Both are to blame, but I do give more blame to those in control right now.

Yes but only for now it is like they absolutely have to be against whatever the other side is trying to do. It cuts both ways and it's the people that suffer!

Bingo.

The crazies keep playing their narcissistic game, and the rest of us - the majority - have to deal with the effects.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know what a PR is or what it does, nor an FPTP, but we've been voting the same way for centuries and that's never going to change. If people get pissed enough at one party or the other, they will (on their own) vote for a similar party. Look for that to happen with the Republicans if Congress keeps stopping Trump from his agenda. With the Trump victory, the Republicans (particularly the establishment Republicans) haven't yet figured out their constituents are pissed off about nothing getting done when we put them in power.

I've always called the Democrat party the party of excuses, but I'm beginning to think it applies to both.

Ray, do you know what it's like talking to someone who thinks they have all the answers, then it turns out they don't actually know what anything is? It's kind of frustrating.

PR is Proportional Representation. This is one person one vote with each vote being worth the same. FPTP is First Past The Post, it's what the US has. Whoever gets the most votes wins the seat. It happens in most elections. In the Presidential election some states will distribute their electoral college votes based on who votes what, but most stick with FPTP.

Yes, the US has been voting the same way for a while. It's not going to change? Well, actually it has changed. But is your argument that there should be no change because it's been around for a while? That's a pretty lame argument.

No, actually if people get pissed at one party, they're more likely to not vote, because like you said, what's the point of voting third party?

You seem to be ignoring the FACTS.

Like I said, 10% of people in Germany change their votes. Now, you have no idea what PR and FPTP are. You couldn't even be ******* bothered to do a simple search on the internet to find out, and your arguments are ******* lame as hell.

Let's face the facts Ray, you couldn't give a ****. You only care that the system is biased towards your way of thinking, and so you don't want to change the system. Don't bullshit me with other lame arguments, because I can see through that shit. Just be honest for once. You don't have a clue about electoral systems and you don't want to know because you don't care about people have a fair vote, you just want to win.

The EC is the fairest way to vote. It insures that everybody has a horse in the race. After all, you vote for a President based on what he's going to do for the people, but that can easily be extended to land as well.

So much like the reason every state has two Senators equally, we have to give some leverage to low populated states, otherwise they are not even worth pandering to to get votes from the candidates, and our major cities and more populated states would have control over the entire country.

No Ray it's not the fairest. Under no circumstances can anyone say it's the fairest. Like I told you, you're interested in one thing.

Everyone doesn't have a horse in the race Ray, it's quite clear that only 12 states have a horse in the race. And seeing how you don't understand other political systems, it seems a little rich that you're telling me it's the fairest system.

So basically what you're writing is bullshit because you have no idea if it's the fairest system.

Of course it's the fairest system. What could be more fair than the EC?

The Electoral College gives a politician a need to pander to less populated states just like they pander to larger more populated areas. The more populated states still have the upper hand, but at the very least the less populated states are not totally overlooked.

Well, seeing as you don't know about any other systems, how can you even say this? It's typical of people on forums like this, think they know everything, but know nothing.

But I'll try and educate you.

The EC isn't fair because:

A) It gives more power of votes to people in smaller states. This is inherently unfair.
B) It gives more power of votes to people in swing states. This is inherently unfair.

If you live in Hawaii and you vote Republican, your vote is a waste vote. 62.22% of people voted for Hillary. The highest (except for DC) that Hillary got. Hawaii always votes Democrat, so Republicans votes simple aren't even worth counting. It's not FAIR for Republicans in Hawaii. Their voice isn't heard, no one cares about them.

If you live in West Virginia, Trump's highest (except 3rd in Nebraska) then your vote is a waste of time too.

In fact there are only 12 states in the US where is really actually any point in turning out to vote. Your president doesn't get decided by your vote. Screw you, **** off, you don't choose.

Also, a president can win with less votes, this isn't the will of the people, it's the will of the system. It also tells presidential candidates to attack swing states and ignore strong states. Meaning that Hawaii and West Virginia get nothing. It doesn't matter what you do.

136.6 million people voted in the presidential election.

The states that mattered were
Nevada, 1 million votes.
Colorado 1.3 million votes
Iowa 1.45 million votes
Minnesota 1.7 million votes
Wisconsin 1.8 million votes
Michigan 2.5 million votes
Ohio 3 million votes
Pennsylvania 5.8 million votes
New Hampshire 700,000 votes
Virginia 3.7 million votes
North Carolina 4.4 million votes
Florida 9 million votes

Add these up together you get about 28.2 million people. That's less than 21% of the vote. Yes, less than 21% of people in the US decide the US election. Everyone else's vote is out of the window, who cares?


In Germany with PR they have a 5% run off, this means if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% your vote is a waste of time.

44 million people votes in 2009 federal election in Germany. 41.7 million votes therefore decided who would be in parliament and 2.3 million votes were out of the window. That's 95% of the voters.


Now, you're trying to tell me that a system which has 95% of voters getting to choose their govt is better than 21%? I think you're bullshitting me.


Also, in Germany there were 6 parties that got into parliament. That means that people got to CHOOSE between 6 parties, whereas in the US it was TWO parties. You're telling me this is fairer?

No, you're wrong. And as long as you have your head so far up your partisan ass, you'll be wrong until the cows come home.

How am I wrong? What you want is a pure Democracy which this country is not. We are a Republic, live with that. But since you like numbers so much, here are the populations of some of our states:

Wyoming......... under 590,000
Virginia.............under 625,000
Alaska..............under 742,000
North Dakota....under 760,000
South Dakota around 865,000
Deleware..........under 953,000
Montana...........under 1.1 million

Now if you add all these people up, the population for these seven states is under 5.5 million people. So what is my point? My point is the population in New York City alone is over 8.5 million people. That means there is more power in one city in our country than there are in nine of our least populated states.

While the electoral college doesn't even the score for those smaller states compared to NYC, it at least gives them a larger voice in our elections than they otherwise would have had. Now if you want to add the population of California with NYC, that's a grand total of 40 million people in one state and one city. And since they heavily vote Democrat, that would mean we would be a single-party government forever. It would make no sense for anybody else to vote without the EC system we have today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the working class underpaid people that make the big bucks for the Ill repute ceos who absolutely hate those workers. It's in some folks blood to side with the ceos. Hence we are it in the posts. The sad fact is most all companies do not like their employees...fact I stake everything I have on.

This gets more and more true every day. The bigger the company the more they hate the people doing the actual work to make their widget!

All this hate and not one iota of evidence to support it.

I work it all the time bro.

Oh, then I am convinced. Such a good argument.

Well jr. I left a job in cove point maryland last year at this time were they gave us 1 30 minute break in a 10 hr day. They also dictated when they could give us that break. Shift started at 7 am and the soonest our crew got a break was at 145 pm. That is the highlight of the experience, our break area was a connex box with no power. So in the 90 degree heat the break area was about 105 to 115 degrees. Now that sure is great treatment for the people that are building their project. I know YOU would agree because you are a company suck ass.

No, I would have never taken the job in the first place. Choice is fun!

 

[Aldo Raine]

This gets more and more true every day. The bigger the company the more they hate the people doing the actual work to make their widget!

All this hate and not one iota of evidence to support it.

I work it all the time bro.

Oh, then I am convinced. Such a good argument.

Well jr. I left a job in cove point maryland last year at this time were they gave us 1 30 minute break in a 10 hr day. They also dictated when they could give us that break. Shift started at 7 am and the soonest our crew got a break was at 145 pm. That is the highlight of the experience, our break area was a connex box with no power. So in the 90 degree heat the break area was about 105 to 115 degrees. Now that sure is great treatment for the people that are building their project. I know YOU would agree because you are a company suck ass.

No, I would have never taken the job in the first place. Choice is fun!

They do not tell you the conditions on the job before you get there, and they change pretty much whatever they want when they want. Word got out and they had a hard time manning the job fairly soon after. Guess what they did, manned it with Mexicans, SE Asians and central Americans. All this an hour and 10 minute drive from Heir Trump. What did he do, big fat nothing Burger.

Choices are fun, quit that little jewel drove to to Iowa and worked on a gas fired powerhouse. Not coal, gas, took an $8/hr cut in pay and drove 1300 miles. Many others did similar things to escape that bullshit treatment and good ole MAGA did nothing about the use of these alien workers on 1 of the biggest projects going on in the country at that time. And the first of a kind project in the world that I know of, how about that for companies treating workers fairly?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ray, do you know what it's like talking to someone who thinks they have all the answers, then it turns out they don't actually know what anything is? It's kind of frustrating.

PR is Proportional Representation. This is one person one vote with each vote being worth the same. FPTP is First Past The Post, it's what the US has. Whoever gets the most votes wins the seat. It happens in most elections. In the Presidential election some states will distribute their electoral college votes based on who votes what, but most stick with FPTP.

Yes, the US has been voting the same way for a while. It's not going to change? Well, actually it has changed. But is your argument that there should be no change because it's been around for a while? That's a pretty lame argument.

No, actually if people get pissed at one party, they're more likely to not vote, because like you said, what's the point of voting third party?

You seem to be ignoring the FACTS.

Like I said, 10% of people in Germany change their votes. Now, you have no idea what PR and FPTP are. You couldn't even be ******* bothered to do a simple search on the internet to find out, and your arguments are ******* lame as hell.

Let's face the facts Ray, you couldn't give a ****. You only care that the system is biased towards your way of thinking, and so you don't want to change the system. Don't bullshit me with other lame arguments, because I can see through that shit. Just be honest for once. You don't have a clue about electoral systems and you don't want to know because you don't care about people have a fair vote, you just want to win.

The EC is the fairest way to vote. It insures that everybody has a horse in the race. After all, you vote for a President based on what he's going to do for the people, but that can easily be extended to land as well.

So much like the reason every state has two Senators equally, we have to give some leverage to low populated states, otherwise they are not even worth pandering to to get votes from the candidates, and our major cities and more populated states would have control over the entire country.

No Ray it's not the fairest. Under no circumstances can anyone say it's the fairest. Like I told you, you're interested in one thing.

Everyone doesn't have a horse in the race Ray, it's quite clear that only 12 states have a horse in the race. And seeing how you don't understand other political systems, it seems a little rich that you're telling me it's the fairest system.

So basically what you're writing is bullshit because you have no idea if it's the fairest system.

Of course it's the fairest system. What could be more fair than the EC?

The Electoral College gives a politician a need to pander to less populated states just like they pander to larger more populated areas. The more populated states still have the upper hand, but at the very least the less populated states are not totally overlooked.

Well, seeing as you don't know about any other systems, how can you even say this? It's typical of people on forums like this, think they know everything, but know nothing.

But I'll try and educate you.

The EC isn't fair because:

A) It gives more power of votes to people in smaller states. This is inherently unfair.
B) It gives more power of votes to people in swing states. This is inherently unfair.

If you live in Hawaii and you vote Republican, your vote is a waste vote. 62.22% of people voted for Hillary. The highest (except for DC) that Hillary got. Hawaii always votes Democrat, so Republicans votes simple aren't even worth counting. It's not FAIR for Republicans in Hawaii. Their voice isn't heard, no one cares about them.

If you live in West Virginia, Trump's highest (except 3rd in Nebraska) then your vote is a waste of time too.

In fact there are only 12 states in the US where is really actually any point in turning out to vote. Your president doesn't get decided by your vote. Screw you, **** off, you don't choose.

Also, a president can win with less votes, this isn't the will of the people, it's the will of the system. It also tells presidential candidates to attack swing states and ignore strong states. Meaning that Hawaii and West Virginia get nothing. It doesn't matter what you do.

136.6 million people voted in the presidential election.

The states that mattered were
Nevada, 1 million votes.
Colorado 1.3 million votes
Iowa 1.45 million votes
Minnesota 1.7 million votes
Wisconsin 1.8 million votes
Michigan 2.5 million votes
Ohio 3 million votes
Pennsylvania 5.8 million votes
New Hampshire 700,000 votes
Virginia 3.7 million votes
North Carolina 4.4 million votes
Florida 9 million votes

Add these up together you get about 28.2 million people. That's less than 21% of the vote. Yes, less than 21% of people in the US decide the US election. Everyone else's vote is out of the window, who cares?


In Germany with PR they have a 5% run off, this means if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% your vote is a waste of time.

44 million people votes in 2009 federal election in Germany. 41.7 million votes therefore decided who would be in parliament and 2.3 million votes were out of the window. That's 95% of the voters.


Now, you're trying to tell me that a system which has 95% of voters getting to choose their govt is better than 21%? I think you're bullshitting me.


Also, in Germany there were 6 parties that got into parliament. That means that people got to CHOOSE between 6 parties, whereas in the US it was TWO parties. You're telling me this is fairer?

No, you're wrong. And as long as you have your head so far up your partisan ass, you'll be wrong until the cows come home.

How am I wrong? What you want is a pure Democracy which this country is not. We are a Republic, live with that. But since you like numbers so much, here are the populations of some of our states:

Wyoming......... under 590,000
Virginia.............under 625,000
Alaska..............under 742,000
North Dakota....under 760,000
South Dakota around 865,000
Deleware..........under 953,000
Montana...........under 1.1 million

Now if you add all these people up, the population for these seven states is under 5.5 million people. So what is my point? My point is the population in New York City alone is over 8.5 million people. That means there is more power in one city in our country than there are in nine of our least populated states.

While the electoral college doesn't even the score for those smaller states compared to NYC, it at least gives them a larger voice in our elections than they otherwise would have had. Now if you want to add the population of California with NYC, that's a grand total of 40 million people in one state and one city. And since they heavily vote Democrat, that would mean we would be a single-party government forever. It would make no sense for anybody else to vote without the EC system we have today.

How are you wrong? In every single way Ray. You don't even have the knowledge to make the claims you're making.

Wait, what I want is not the point here. What we were talking about, if you could possibly keep on topic for at least one post, is whether the system was fair. You said the EC system was the fairest system. In that you're wrong.

I do know the population of the states, but your argument stinks.

Your point is that the EC promotes the interests of the smaller states, right?

But it doesn't.

Out of those 7 states how much advertising money was spent on them by the two main parties?

Not much is the answer. Why? Because they're not swing states. Only swing states get a look in. That's 12-14 states out of 50, which includes only 20-21% of the US voters. Trump didn't spend much in non-swing states and didn't care about them. These people don't get representation.

In Germany they do. Why? Because political parties go for the votes all over the country. Why? Because each vote counts. As I said and you ignored again, 95% of votes end up counting towards the make up of the govt. In the US it's like 20% in the Presidential election.

There are only two parties in the US, no choice.

But Ray, I've said it many times, you're a partisan hack and you keep coming up with the same bullshit time and again and you don't know anything about any system out there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This gets more and more true every day. The bigger the company the more they hate the people doing the actual work to make their widget!

All this hate and not one iota of evidence to support it.

I work it all the time bro.

Oh, then I am convinced. Such a good argument.

Well jr. I left a job in cove point maryland last year at this time were they gave us 1 30 minute break in a 10 hr day. They also dictated when they could give us that break. Shift started at 7 am and the soonest our crew got a break was at 145 pm. That is the highlight of the experience, our break area was a connex box with no power. So in the 90 degree heat the break area was about 105 to 115 degrees. Now that sure is great treatment for the people that are building their project. I know YOU would agree because you are a company suck ass.

No, I would have never taken the job in the first place. Choice is fun!

Except when it comes to political parties, in which case you don't want choice.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ray, do you know what it's like talking to someone who thinks they have all the answers, then it turns out they don't actually know what anything is? It's kind of frustrating.

PR is Proportional Representation. This is one person one vote with each vote being worth the same. FPTP is First Past The Post, it's what the US has. Whoever gets the most votes wins the seat. It happens in most elections. In the Presidential election some states will distribute their electoral college votes based on who votes what, but most stick with FPTP.

Yes, the US has been voting the same way for a while. It's not going to change? Well, actually it has changed. But is your argument that there should be no change because it's been around for a while? That's a pretty lame argument.

No, actually if people get pissed at one party, they're more likely to not vote, because like you said, what's the point of voting third party?

You seem to be ignoring the FACTS.

Like I said, 10% of people in Germany change their votes. Now, you have no idea what PR and FPTP are. You couldn't even be ******* bothered to do a simple search on the internet to find out, and your arguments are ******* lame as hell.

Let's face the facts Ray, you couldn't give a ****. You only care that the system is biased towards your way of thinking, and so you don't want to change the system. Don't bullshit me with other lame arguments, because I can see through that shit. Just be honest for once. You don't have a clue about electoral systems and you don't want to know because you don't care about people have a fair vote, you just want to win.

The EC is the fairest way to vote. It insures that everybody has a horse in the race. After all, you vote for a President based on what he's going to do for the people, but that can easily be extended to land as well.

So much like the reason every state has two Senators equally, we have to give some leverage to low populated states, otherwise they are not even worth pandering to to get votes from the candidates, and our major cities and more populated states would have control over the entire country.

No Ray it's not the fairest. Under no circumstances can anyone say it's the fairest. Like I told you, you're interested in one thing.

Everyone doesn't have a horse in the race Ray, it's quite clear that only 12 states have a horse in the race. And seeing how you don't understand other political systems, it seems a little rich that you're telling me it's the fairest system.

So basically what you're writing is bullshit because you have no idea if it's the fairest system.

Of course it's the fairest system. What could be more fair than the EC?

The Electoral College gives a politician a need to pander to less populated states just like they pander to larger more populated areas. The more populated states still have the upper hand, but at the very least the less populated states are not totally overlooked.

Well, seeing as you don't know about any other systems, how can you even say this? It's typical of people on forums like this, think they know everything, but know nothing.

But I'll try and educate you.

The EC isn't fair because:

A) It gives more power of votes to people in smaller states. This is inherently unfair.
B) It gives more power of votes to people in swing states. This is inherently unfair.

If you live in Hawaii and you vote Republican, your vote is a waste vote. 62.22% of people voted for Hillary. The highest (except for DC) that Hillary got. Hawaii always votes Democrat, so Republicans votes simple aren't even worth counting. It's not FAIR for Republicans in Hawaii. Their voice isn't heard, no one cares about them.

If you live in West Virginia, Trump's highest (except 3rd in Nebraska) then your vote is a waste of time too.

In fact there are only 12 states in the US where is really actually any point in turning out to vote. Your president doesn't get decided by your vote. Screw you, **** off, you don't choose.

Also, a president can win with less votes, this isn't the will of the people, it's the will of the system. It also tells presidential candidates to attack swing states and ignore strong states. Meaning that Hawaii and West Virginia get nothing. It doesn't matter what you do.

136.6 million people voted in the presidential election.

The states that mattered were
Nevada, 1 million votes.
Colorado 1.3 million votes
Iowa 1.45 million votes
Minnesota 1.7 million votes
Wisconsin 1.8 million votes
Michigan 2.5 million votes
Ohio 3 million votes
Pennsylvania 5.8 million votes
New Hampshire 700,000 votes
Virginia 3.7 million votes
North Carolina 4.4 million votes
Florida 9 million votes

Add these up together you get about 28.2 million people. That's less than 21% of the vote. Yes, less than 21% of people in the US decide the US election. Everyone else's vote is out of the window, who cares?


In Germany with PR they have a 5% run off, this means if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% your vote is a waste of time.

44 million people votes in 2009 federal election in Germany. 41.7 million votes therefore decided who would be in parliament and 2.3 million votes were out of the window. That's 95% of the voters.


Now, you're trying to tell me that a system which has 95% of voters getting to choose their govt is better than 21%? I think you're bullshitting me.


Also, in Germany there were 6 parties that got into parliament. That means that people got to CHOOSE between 6 parties, whereas in the US it was TWO parties. You're telling me this is fairer?

No, you're wrong. And as long as you have your head so far up your partisan ass, you'll be wrong until the cows come home.

How am I wrong? What you want is a pure Democracy which this country is not. We are a Republic, live with that. But since you like numbers so much, here are the populations of some of our states:

Wyoming......... under 590,000
Virginia.............under 625,000
Alaska..............under 742,000
North Dakota....under 760,000
South Dakota around 865,000
Deleware..........under 953,000
Montana...........under 1.1 million

Now if you add all these people up, the population for these seven states is under 5.5 million people. So what is my point? My point is the population in New York City alone is over 8.5 million people. That means there is more power in one city in our country than there are in nine of our least populated states.

While the electoral college doesn't even the score for those smaller states compared to NYC, it at least gives them a larger voice in our elections than they otherwise would have had. Now if you want to add the population of California with NYC, that's a grand total of 40 million people in one state and one city. And since they heavily vote Democrat, that would mean we would be a single-party government forever. It would make no sense for anybody else to vote without the EC system we have today.

Oh and Ray, your statistics SUCK BALLS. If you think Virginia has a population of "under 625,000", then....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The EC is the fairest way to vote. It insures that everybody has a horse in the race. After all, you vote for a President based on what he's going to do for the people, but that can easily be extended to land as well.

So much like the reason every state has two Senators equally, we have to give some leverage to low populated states, otherwise they are not even worth pandering to to get votes from the candidates, and our major cities and more populated states would have control over the entire country.

No Ray it's not the fairest. Under no circumstances can anyone say it's the fairest. Like I told you, you're interested in one thing.

Everyone doesn't have a horse in the race Ray, it's quite clear that only 12 states have a horse in the race. And seeing how you don't understand other political systems, it seems a little rich that you're telling me it's the fairest system.

So basically what you're writing is bullshit because you have no idea if it's the fairest system.

Of course it's the fairest system. What could be more fair than the EC?

The Electoral College gives a politician a need to pander to less populated states just like they pander to larger more populated areas. The more populated states still have the upper hand, but at the very least the less populated states are not totally overlooked.

Well, seeing as you don't know about any other systems, how can you even say this? It's typical of people on forums like this, think they know everything, but know nothing.

But I'll try and educate you.

The EC isn't fair because:

A) It gives more power of votes to people in smaller states. This is inherently unfair.
B) It gives more power of votes to people in swing states. This is inherently unfair.

If you live in Hawaii and you vote Republican, your vote is a waste vote. 62.22% of people voted for Hillary. The highest (except for DC) that Hillary got. Hawaii always votes Democrat, so Republicans votes simple aren't even worth counting. It's not FAIR for Republicans in Hawaii. Their voice isn't heard, no one cares about them.

If you live in West Virginia, Trump's highest (except 3rd in Nebraska) then your vote is a waste of time too.

In fact there are only 12 states in the US where is really actually any point in turning out to vote. Your president doesn't get decided by your vote. Screw you, **** off, you don't choose.

Also, a president can win with less votes, this isn't the will of the people, it's the will of the system. It also tells presidential candidates to attack swing states and ignore strong states. Meaning that Hawaii and West Virginia get nothing. It doesn't matter what you do.

136.6 million people voted in the presidential election.

The states that mattered were
Nevada, 1 million votes.
Colorado 1.3 million votes
Iowa 1.45 million votes
Minnesota 1.7 million votes
Wisconsin 1.8 million votes
Michigan 2.5 million votes
Ohio 3 million votes
Pennsylvania 5.8 million votes
New Hampshire 700,000 votes
Virginia 3.7 million votes
North Carolina 4.4 million votes
Florida 9 million votes

Add these up together you get about 28.2 million people. That's less than 21% of the vote. Yes, less than 21% of people in the US decide the US election. Everyone else's vote is out of the window, who cares?


In Germany with PR they have a 5% run off, this means if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% your vote is a waste of time.

44 million people votes in 2009 federal election in Germany. 41.7 million votes therefore decided who would be in parliament and 2.3 million votes were out of the window. That's 95% of the voters.


Now, you're trying to tell me that a system which has 95% of voters getting to choose their govt is better than 21%? I think you're bullshitting me.


Also, in Germany there were 6 parties that got into parliament. That means that people got to CHOOSE between 6 parties, whereas in the US it was TWO parties. You're telling me this is fairer?

No, you're wrong. And as long as you have your head so far up your partisan ass, you'll be wrong until the cows come home.

How am I wrong? What you want is a pure Democracy which this country is not. We are a Republic, live with that. But since you like numbers so much, here are the populations of some of our states:

Wyoming......... under 590,000
Virginia.............under 625,000
Alaska..............under 742,000
North Dakota....under 760,000
South Dakota around 865,000
Deleware..........under 953,000
Montana...........under 1.1 million

Now if you add all these people up, the population for these seven states is under 5.5 million people. So what is my point? My point is the population in New York City alone is over 8.5 million people. That means there is more power in one city in our country than there are in nine of our least populated states.

While the electoral college doesn't even the score for those smaller states compared to NYC, it at least gives them a larger voice in our elections than they otherwise would have had. Now if you want to add the population of California with NYC, that's a grand total of 40 million people in one state and one city. And since they heavily vote Democrat, that would mean we would be a single-party government forever. It would make no sense for anybody else to vote without the EC system we have today.

How are you wrong? In every single way Ray. You don't even have the knowledge to make the claims you're making.

Wait, what I want is not the point here. What we were talking about, if you could possibly keep on topic for at least one post, is whether the system was fair. You said the EC system was the fairest system. In that you're wrong.

I do know the population of the states, but your argument stinks.

Your point is that the EC promotes the interests of the smaller states, right?

But it doesn't.

Out of those 7 states how much advertising money was spent on them by the two main parties?

Not much is the answer. Why? Because they're not swing states. Only swing states get a look in. That's 12-14 states out of 50, which includes only 20-21% of the US voters. Trump didn't spend much in non-swing states and didn't care about them. These people don't get representation.

In Germany they do. Why? Because political parties go for the votes all over the country. Why? Because each vote counts. As I said and you ignored again, 95% of votes end up counting towards the make up of the govt. In the US it's like 20% in the Presidential election.

There are only two parties in the US, no choice.

But Ray, I've said it many times, you're a partisan hack and you keep coming up with the same bullshit time and again and you don't know anything about any system out there.

What I do know about is our system here, because I am a citizen here and vote here. I don't care what anybody else does. If I thought that everybody else had better systems than we do, I would move over there.

How much money those states spent is irrelevant to the discussion. Money doesn't always equal results. Hil-Liar spent twice as much as Trump and still lost.

My point (which apparently flew right over your head) is that we can't give the rights to who leads this country to one or two cities or one or two states. We are not one big government, we are individual governments that form a union. And individual governments should have a say-so as to who leads the union. Without the EC, that would be impossible because no candidate would give two shits about the less populated states. Both candidates would be campaigning in four or five states only promising them the world at the cost to everybody else.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The EC is the fairest way to vote. It insures that everybody has a horse in the race. After all, you vote for a President based on what he's going to do for the people, but that can easily be extended to land as well.

So much like the reason every state has two Senators equally, we have to give some leverage to low populated states, otherwise they are not even worth pandering to to get votes from the candidates, and our major cities and more populated states would have control over the entire country.

No Ray it's not the fairest. Under no circumstances can anyone say it's the fairest. Like I told you, you're interested in one thing.

Everyone doesn't have a horse in the race Ray, it's quite clear that only 12 states have a horse in the race. And seeing how you don't understand other political systems, it seems a little rich that you're telling me it's the fairest system.

So basically what you're writing is bullshit because you have no idea if it's the fairest system.

Of course it's the fairest system. What could be more fair than the EC?

The Electoral College gives a politician a need to pander to less populated states just like they pander to larger more populated areas. The more populated states still have the upper hand, but at the very least the less populated states are not totally overlooked.

Well, seeing as you don't know about any other systems, how can you even say this? It's typical of people on forums like this, think they know everything, but know nothing.

But I'll try and educate you.

The EC isn't fair because:

A) It gives more power of votes to people in smaller states. This is inherently unfair.
B) It gives more power of votes to people in swing states. This is inherently unfair.

If you live in Hawaii and you vote Republican, your vote is a waste vote. 62.22% of people voted for Hillary. The highest (except for DC) that Hillary got. Hawaii always votes Democrat, so Republicans votes simple aren't even worth counting. It's not FAIR for Republicans in Hawaii. Their voice isn't heard, no one cares about them.

If you live in West Virginia, Trump's highest (except 3rd in Nebraska) then your vote is a waste of time too.

In fact there are only 12 states in the US where is really actually any point in turning out to vote. Your president doesn't get decided by your vote. Screw you, **** off, you don't choose.

Also, a president can win with less votes, this isn't the will of the people, it's the will of the system. It also tells presidential candidates to attack swing states and ignore strong states. Meaning that Hawaii and West Virginia get nothing. It doesn't matter what you do.

136.6 million people voted in the presidential election.

The states that mattered were
Nevada, 1 million votes.
Colorado 1.3 million votes
Iowa 1.45 million votes
Minnesota 1.7 million votes
Wisconsin 1.8 million votes
Michigan 2.5 million votes
Ohio 3 million votes
Pennsylvania 5.8 million votes
New Hampshire 700,000 votes
Virginia 3.7 million votes
North Carolina 4.4 million votes
Florida 9 million votes

Add these up together you get about 28.2 million people. That's less than 21% of the vote. Yes, less than 21% of people in the US decide the US election. Everyone else's vote is out of the window, who cares?


In Germany with PR they have a 5% run off, this means if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% your vote is a waste of time.

44 million people votes in 2009 federal election in Germany. 41.7 million votes therefore decided who would be in parliament and 2.3 million votes were out of the window. That's 95% of the voters.


Now, you're trying to tell me that a system which has 95% of voters getting to choose their govt is better than 21%? I think you're bullshitting me.


Also, in Germany there were 6 parties that got into parliament. That means that people got to CHOOSE between 6 parties, whereas in the US it was TWO parties. You're telling me this is fairer?

No, you're wrong. And as long as you have your head so far up your partisan ass, you'll be wrong until the cows come home.

How am I wrong? What you want is a pure Democracy which this country is not. We are a Republic, live with that. But since you like numbers so much, here are the populations of some of our states:

Wyoming......... under 590,000
Virginia.............under 625,000
Alaska..............under 742,000
North Dakota....under 760,000
South Dakota around 865,000
Deleware..........under 953,000
Montana...........under 1.1 million

Now if you add all these people up, the population for these seven states is under 5.5 million people. So what is my point? My point is the population in New York City alone is over 8.5 million people. That means there is more power in one city in our country than there are in nine of our least populated states.

While the electoral college doesn't even the score for those smaller states compared to NYC, it at least gives them a larger voice in our elections than they otherwise would have had. Now if you want to add the population of California with NYC, that's a grand total of 40 million people in one state and one city. And since they heavily vote Democrat, that would mean we would be a single-party government forever. It would make no sense for anybody else to vote without the EC system we have today.

Oh and Ray, your statistics SUCK BALLS. If you think Virginia has a population of "under 625,000", then....

My bad, I meant to type Vermont.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All this hate and not one iota of evidence to support it.

I work it all the time bro.

Oh, then I am convinced. Such a good argument.

Well jr. I left a job in cove point maryland last year at this time were they gave us 1 30 minute break in a 10 hr day. They also dictated when they could give us that break. Shift started at 7 am and the soonest our crew got a break was at 145 pm. That is the highlight of the experience, our break area was a connex box with no power. So in the 90 degree heat the break area was about 105 to 115 degrees. Now that sure is great treatment for the people that are building their project. I know YOU would agree because you are a company suck ass.

No, I would have never taken the job in the first place. Choice is fun!

They do not tell you the conditions on the job before you get there, and they change pretty much whatever they want when they want. Word got out and they had a hard time manning the job fairly soon after. Guess what they did, manned it with Mexicans, SE Asians and central Americans. All this an hour and 10 minute drive from Heir Trump. What did he do, big fat nothing Burger.

Choices are fun, quit that little jewel drove to to Iowa and worked on a gas fired powerhouse. Not coal, gas, took an $8/hr cut in pay and drove 1300 miles. Many others did similar things to escape that bullshit treatment and good ole MAGA did nothing about the use of these alien workers on 1 of the biggest projects going on in the country at that time. And the first of a kind project in the world that I know of, how about that for companies treating workers fairly?

If employees don't like the way a company is treating them, then the employees leave. And you are correct about our immigration problem. It's been something I've been preaching against the last couple of years.

As long as we have foreigners willing to work for nothing, the jobs will always pay nothing. If we close off the border, no work Visas, no Green Cards, then employers would be forced to treat their employees better; not forced by government, but forced by the supply and demand process of employment.

 

[Aldo Raine]

I work it all the time bro.

Oh, then I am convinced. Such a good argument.

Well jr. I left a job in cove point maryland last year at this time were they gave us 1 30 minute break in a 10 hr day. They also dictated when they could give us that break. Shift started at 7 am and the soonest our crew got a break was at 145 pm. That is the highlight of the experience, our break area was a connex box with no power. So in the 90 degree heat the break area was about 105 to 115 degrees. Now that sure is great treatment for the people that are building their project. I know YOU would agree because you are a company suck ass.

No, I would have never taken the job in the first place. Choice is fun!

They do not tell you the conditions on the job before you get there, and they change pretty much whatever they want when they want. Word got out and they had a hard time manning the job fairly soon after. Guess what they did, manned it with Mexicans, SE Asians and central Americans. All this an hour and 10 minute drive from Heir Trump. What did he do, big fat nothing Burger.

Choices are fun, quit that little jewel drove to to Iowa and worked on a gas fired powerhouse. Not coal, gas, took an $8/hr cut in pay and drove 1300 miles. Many others did similar things to escape that bullshit treatment and good ole MAGA did nothing about the use of these alien workers on 1 of the biggest projects going on in the country at that time. And the first of a kind project in the world that I know of, how about that for companies treating workers fairly?

If employees don't like the way a company is treating them, then the employees leave. And you are correct about our immigration problem. It's been something I've been preaching against the last couple of years.

As long as we have foreigners willing to work for nothing, the jobs will always pay nothing. If we close off the border, no work Visas, no Green Cards, then employers would be forced to treat their employees better; not forced by government, but forced by the supply and demand process of employment.

The original argument is you didn't like that some off us are not happy with treatment we get from companies. I gave you an example and now you are not happy with that.

It's the same with you in every thread, Ray's way and ONLY Ray's way can be right! Nice little nest you live in.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, then I am convinced. Such a good argument.

Well jr. I left a job in cove point maryland last year at this time were they gave us 1 30 minute break in a 10 hr day. They also dictated when they could give us that break. Shift started at 7 am and the soonest our crew got a break was at 145 pm. That is the highlight of the experience, our break area was a connex box with no power. So in the 90 degree heat the break area was about 105 to 115 degrees. Now that sure is great treatment for the people that are building their project. I know YOU would agree because you are a company suck ass.

No, I would have never taken the job in the first place. Choice is fun!

They do not tell you the conditions on the job before you get there, and they change pretty much whatever they want when they want. Word got out and they had a hard time manning the job fairly soon after. Guess what they did, manned it with Mexicans, SE Asians and central Americans. All this an hour and 10 minute drive from Heir Trump. What did he do, big fat nothing Burger.

Choices are fun, quit that little jewel drove to to Iowa and worked on a gas fired powerhouse. Not coal, gas, took an $8/hr cut in pay and drove 1300 miles. Many others did similar things to escape that bullshit treatment and good ole MAGA did nothing about the use of these alien workers on 1 of the biggest projects going on in the country at that time. And the first of a kind project in the world that I know of, how about that for companies treating workers fairly?

If employees don't like the way a company is treating them, then the employees leave. And you are correct about our immigration problem. It's been something I've been preaching against the last couple of years.

As long as we have foreigners willing to work for nothing, the jobs will always pay nothing. If we close off the border, no work Visas, no Green Cards, then employers would be forced to treat their employees better; not forced by government, but forced by the supply and demand process of employment.

The original argument is you didn't like that some off us are not happy with treatment we get from companies. I gave you an example and now you are not happy with that.

It's the same with you in every thread, Ray's way and ONLY Ray's way can be right! Nice little nest you live in.

Ray's way is taking action on behalf of yourself--not expecting others to take action for you. In this great beautiful country of ours, most all of us have the ability to change our plight at any given time. It may require some extra work, may require some sacrifice, but only you are in charge of your own life--not government.

People are very myopic. They only see things through their point of view. Seldom do they consider the situation of others. This is especially true of business.

For instance when people see what I do, they ask why I have a full-time job? They just add up the rental money I collect as if I put that in my pocket and spend it freely. If they inquire, I tell them what my bills are, what I have to do to maintain this place, what I have to do to put up with the government here, what I pay in taxes....... It's only then they have a full understanding of what it's like on the other side of the fence. But again, most people don't ask.

Most beginning businesses in our country fail. People work their lives and save every dime only to open up a business and be forced to shut it down in a couple of years. Some businesses do survive, but are open on a week to week basis. They are not sitting on this pile of money many think they are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No Ray it's not the fairest. Under no circumstances can anyone say it's the fairest. Like I told you, you're interested in one thing.

Everyone doesn't have a horse in the race Ray, it's quite clear that only 12 states have a horse in the race. And seeing how you don't understand other political systems, it seems a little rich that you're telling me it's the fairest system.

So basically what you're writing is bullshit because you have no idea if it's the fairest system.

Of course it's the fairest system. What could be more fair than the EC?

The Electoral College gives a politician a need to pander to less populated states just like they pander to larger more populated areas. The more populated states still have the upper hand, but at the very least the less populated states are not totally overlooked.

Well, seeing as you don't know about any other systems, how can you even say this? It's typical of people on forums like this, think they know everything, but know nothing.

But I'll try and educate you.

The EC isn't fair because:

A) It gives more power of votes to people in smaller states. This is inherently unfair.
B) It gives more power of votes to people in swing states. This is inherently unfair.

If you live in Hawaii and you vote Republican, your vote is a waste vote. 62.22% of people voted for Hillary. The highest (except for DC) that Hillary got. Hawaii always votes Democrat, so Republicans votes simple aren't even worth counting. It's not FAIR for Republicans in Hawaii. Their voice isn't heard, no one cares about them.

If you live in West Virginia, Trump's highest (except 3rd in Nebraska) then your vote is a waste of time too.

In fact there are only 12 states in the US where is really actually any point in turning out to vote. Your president doesn't get decided by your vote. Screw you, **** off, you don't choose.

Also, a president can win with less votes, this isn't the will of the people, it's the will of the system. It also tells presidential candidates to attack swing states and ignore strong states. Meaning that Hawaii and West Virginia get nothing. It doesn't matter what you do.

136.6 million people voted in the presidential election.

The states that mattered were
Nevada, 1 million votes.
Colorado 1.3 million votes
Iowa 1.45 million votes
Minnesota 1.7 million votes
Wisconsin 1.8 million votes
Michigan 2.5 million votes
Ohio 3 million votes
Pennsylvania 5.8 million votes
New Hampshire 700,000 votes
Virginia 3.7 million votes
North Carolina 4.4 million votes
Florida 9 million votes

Add these up together you get about 28.2 million people. That's less than 21% of the vote. Yes, less than 21% of people in the US decide the US election. Everyone else's vote is out of the window, who cares?


In Germany with PR they have a 5% run off, this means if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% your vote is a waste of time.

44 million people votes in 2009 federal election in Germany. 41.7 million votes therefore decided who would be in parliament and 2.3 million votes were out of the window. That's 95% of the voters.


Now, you're trying to tell me that a system which has 95% of voters getting to choose their govt is better than 21%? I think you're bullshitting me.


Also, in Germany there were 6 parties that got into parliament. That means that people got to CHOOSE between 6 parties, whereas in the US it was TWO parties. You're telling me this is fairer?

No, you're wrong. And as long as you have your head so far up your partisan ass, you'll be wrong until the cows come home.

How am I wrong? What you want is a pure Democracy which this country is not. We are a Republic, live with that. But since you like numbers so much, here are the populations of some of our states:

Wyoming......... under 590,000
Virginia.............under 625,000
Alaska..............under 742,000
North Dakota....under 760,000
South Dakota around 865,000
Deleware..........under 953,000
Montana...........under 1.1 million

Now if you add all these people up, the population for these seven states is under 5.5 million people. So what is my point? My point is the population in New York City alone is over 8.5 million people. That means there is more power in one city in our country than there are in nine of our least populated states.

While the electoral college doesn't even the score for those smaller states compared to NYC, it at least gives them a larger voice in our elections than they otherwise would have had. Now if you want to add the population of California with NYC, that's a grand total of 40 million people in one state and one city. And since they heavily vote Democrat, that would mean we would be a single-party government forever. It would make no sense for anybody else to vote without the EC system we have today.

How are you wrong? In every single way Ray. You don't even have the knowledge to make the claims you're making.

Wait, what I want is not the point here. What we were talking about, if you could possibly keep on topic for at least one post, is whether the system was fair. You said the EC system was the fairest system. In that you're wrong.

I do know the population of the states, but your argument stinks.

Your point is that the EC promotes the interests of the smaller states, right?

But it doesn't.

Out of those 7 states how much advertising money was spent on them by the two main parties?

Not much is the answer. Why? Because they're not swing states. Only swing states get a look in. That's 12-14 states out of 50, which includes only 20-21% of the US voters. Trump didn't spend much in non-swing states and didn't care about them. These people don't get representation.

In Germany they do. Why? Because political parties go for the votes all over the country. Why? Because each vote counts. As I said and you ignored again, 95% of votes end up counting towards the make up of the govt. In the US it's like 20% in the Presidential election.

There are only two parties in the US, no choice.

But Ray, I've said it many times, you're a partisan hack and you keep coming up with the same bullshit time and again and you don't know anything about any system out there.

What I do know about is our system here, because I am a citizen here and vote here. I don't care what anybody else does. If I thought that everybody else had better systems than we do, I would move over there.

How much money those states spent is irrelevant to the discussion. Money doesn't always equal results. Hil-Liar spent twice as much as Trump and still lost.

My point (which apparently flew right over your head) is that we can't give the rights to who leads this country to one or two cities or one or two states. We are not one big government, we are individual governments that form a union. And individual governments should have a say-so as to who leads the union. Without the EC, that would be impossible because no candidate would give two shits about the less populated states. Both candidates would be campaigning in four or five states only promising them the world at the cost to everybody else.

Yes, you know about the system in the US.

However you said it was the fairest system, and that's bullshit because you don't know anything about any other system. And yet you come to me and say you know stuff you don't know. And you have NO INTENTION of learning about any of this.

As I said before, and as you probably didn't bother reading before, you like the system that is biased towards your way of thinking. Simple as.

No, money doesn't always equate to results. This is another, in a long line, example of you not getting what things mean. You're talking about the EC system giving smaller states more power to make them more equal to the big boy states. But I've shown you time and again why it's not true. The money being spent on the Presidential election shows quite clearly that only 12 states get the attention.

Go to Germany and the attention is all over the place. Farmers have votes that are equal to the votes of city folk. Each vote counts. A few thousand votes and you get a seat.

The Grune got 4.6 million votes. That was 67 seats. That means you get 68,000 votes, you get an extra seat. Sure, you need to get 5% first, but that's doable. In the US it doesn't matter. You have to win the FPTP seat, you have to have enough votes in one small area in order to get the seats in the House, and only two parties can do that.

Again, it's about choice and you don't give a ****.

The point that didn't fly over my head, but has gone past your head so fast you're unable to see the difference between systems.

Here you have the US system. The US system which you think works in a certain way. You think changing over to PR would mean the same thing happening. Yet there's NO EVIDENCE in the WHOLE WORLD that backs up your argument.

92 countries in the world use proportional representation and not one of them has the cities controlling the rest of the country. Not one. Yet you're pulling this shit out of your ass and trying to claim that this is the case. Yet you don't even know one system that uses PR, you didn't even know what PR was and you were too ******* lazy to even look up what PR was.

Again, you don't give a shit. You like the partisan system that gives your side the supposed benefits. That's it. Stop pretending you know stuff that you don't know. Stop throwing fake statistics at me once a week to make it look like you're even trying, and stop pretending that you're anything other than a partisan hack doing what your rich bitches want you to do and say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No Ray it's not the fairest. Under no circumstances can anyone say it's the fairest. Like I told you, you're interested in one thing.

Everyone doesn't have a horse in the race Ray, it's quite clear that only 12 states have a horse in the race. And seeing how you don't understand other political systems, it seems a little rich that you're telling me it's the fairest system.

So basically what you're writing is bullshit because you have no idea if it's the fairest system.

Of course it's the fairest system. What could be more fair than the EC?

The Electoral College gives a politician a need to pander to less populated states just like they pander to larger more populated areas. The more populated states still have the upper hand, but at the very least the less populated states are not totally overlooked.

Well, seeing as you don't know about any other systems, how can you even say this? It's typical of people on forums like this, think they know everything, but know nothing.

But I'll try and educate you.

The EC isn't fair because:

A) It gives more power of votes to people in smaller states. This is inherently unfair.
B) It gives more power of votes to people in swing states. This is inherently unfair.

If you live in Hawaii and you vote Republican, your vote is a waste vote. 62.22% of people voted for Hillary. The highest (except for DC) that Hillary got. Hawaii always votes Democrat, so Republicans votes simple aren't even worth counting. It's not FAIR for Republicans in Hawaii. Their voice isn't heard, no one cares about them.

If you live in West Virginia, Trump's highest (except 3rd in Nebraska) then your vote is a waste of time too.

In fact there are only 12 states in the US where is really actually any point in turning out to vote. Your president doesn't get decided by your vote. Screw you, **** off, you don't choose.

Also, a president can win with less votes, this isn't the will of the people, it's the will of the system. It also tells presidential candidates to attack swing states and ignore strong states. Meaning that Hawaii and West Virginia get nothing. It doesn't matter what you do.

136.6 million people voted in the presidential election.

The states that mattered were
Nevada, 1 million votes.
Colorado 1.3 million votes
Iowa 1.45 million votes
Minnesota 1.7 million votes
Wisconsin 1.8 million votes
Michigan 2.5 million votes
Ohio 3 million votes
Pennsylvania 5.8 million votes
New Hampshire 700,000 votes
Virginia 3.7 million votes
North Carolina 4.4 million votes
Florida 9 million votes

Add these up together you get about 28.2 million people. That's less than 21% of the vote. Yes, less than 21% of people in the US decide the US election. Everyone else's vote is out of the window, who cares?


In Germany with PR they have a 5% run off, this means if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% your vote is a waste of time.

44 million people votes in 2009 federal election in Germany. 41.7 million votes therefore decided who would be in parliament and 2.3 million votes were out of the window. That's 95% of the voters.


Now, you're trying to tell me that a system which has 95% of voters getting to choose their govt is better than 21%? I think you're bullshitting me.


Also, in Germany there were 6 parties that got into parliament. That means that people got to CHOOSE between 6 parties, whereas in the US it was TWO parties. You're telling me this is fairer?

No, you're wrong. And as long as you have your head so far up your partisan ass, you'll be wrong until the cows come home.

How am I wrong? What you want is a pure Democracy which this country is not. We are a Republic, live with that. But since you like numbers so much, here are the populations of some of our states:

Wyoming......... under 590,000
Virginia.............under 625,000
Alaska..............under 742,000
North Dakota....under 760,000
South Dakota around 865,000
Deleware..........under 953,000
Montana...........under 1.1 million

Now if you add all these people up, the population for these seven states is under 5.5 million people. So what is my point? My point is the population in New York City alone is over 8.5 million people. That means there is more power in one city in our country than there are in nine of our least populated states.

While the electoral college doesn't even the score for those smaller states compared to NYC, it at least gives them a larger voice in our elections than they otherwise would have had. Now if you want to add the population of California with NYC, that's a grand total of 40 million people in one state and one city. And since they heavily vote Democrat, that would mean we would be a single-party government forever. It would make no sense for anybody else to vote without the EC system we have today.

Oh and Ray, your statistics SUCK BALLS. If you think Virginia has a population of "under 625,000", then....

My bad, I meant to type Vermont.

Oh wow.

But still Ray, can you tell me how much attention these 7 states got in the US presidential election? Can you tell me how much attention they get in the US senate or house elections? I bet you can't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well jr. I left a job in cove point maryland last year at this time were they gave us 1 30 minute break in a 10 hr day. They also dictated when they could give us that break. Shift started at 7 am and the soonest our crew got a break was at 145 pm. That is the highlight of the experience, our break area was a connex box with no power. So in the 90 degree heat the break area was about 105 to 115 degrees. Now that sure is great treatment for the people that are building their project. I know YOU would agree because you are a company suck ass.

No, I would have never taken the job in the first place. Choice is fun!

They do not tell you the conditions on the job before you get there, and they change pretty much whatever they want when they want. Word got out and they had a hard time manning the job fairly soon after. Guess what they did, manned it with Mexicans, SE Asians and central Americans. All this an hour and 10 minute drive from Heir Trump. What did he do, big fat nothing Burger.

Choices are fun, quit that little jewel drove to to Iowa and worked on a gas fired powerhouse. Not coal, gas, took an $8/hr cut in pay and drove 1300 miles. Many others did similar things to escape that bullshit treatment and good ole MAGA did nothing about the use of these alien workers on 1 of the biggest projects going on in the country at that time. And the first of a kind project in the world that I know of, how about that for companies treating workers fairly?

If employees don't like the way a company is treating them, then the employees leave. And you are correct about our immigration problem. It's been something I've been preaching against the last couple of years.

As long as we have foreigners willing to work for nothing, the jobs will always pay nothing. If we close off the border, no work Visas, no Green Cards, then employers would be forced to treat their employees better; not forced by government, but forced by the supply and demand process of employment.

The original argument is you didn't like that some off us are not happy with treatment we get from companies. I gave you an example and now you are not happy with that.

It's the same with you in every thread, Ray's way and ONLY Ray's way can be right! Nice little nest you live in.

Ray's way is taking action on behalf of yourself--not expecting others to take action for you. In this great beautiful country of ours, most all of us have the ability to change our plight at any given time. It may require some extra work, may require some sacrifice, but only you are in charge of your own life--not government.

People are very myopic. They only see things through their point of view. Seldom do they consider the situation of others. This is especially true of business.

For instance when people see what I do, they ask why I have a full-time job? They just add up the rental money I collect as if I put that in my pocket and spend it freely. If they inquire, I tell them what my bills are, what I have to do to maintain this place, what I have to do to put up with the government here, what I pay in taxes....... It's only then they have a full understanding of what it's like on the other side of the fence. But again, most people don't ask.

Most beginning businesses in our country fail. People work their lives and save every dime only to open up a business and be forced to shut it down in a couple of years. Some businesses do survive, but are open on a week to week basis. They are not sitting on this pile of money many think they are.

No, Ray's way is to do what the Republican money men tell him to do. Ray will say anything, any argument they've given him to say. He'll even say things totally contradictory. He'll say stuff about things he has not ******* clue about and pretend he does actually know. Then when he gets called out on it he'll just deflect and switch to another part of the topic. That's the Ray way, isn't it Ray?

 

[Aldo Raine]

Well jr. I left a job in cove point maryland last year at this time were they gave us 1 30 minute break in a 10 hr day. They also dictated when they could give us that break. Shift started at 7 am and the soonest our crew got a break was at 145 pm. That is the highlight of the experience, our break area was a connex box with no power. So in the 90 degree heat the break area was about 105 to 115 degrees. Now that sure is great treatment for the people that are building their project. I know YOU would agree because you are a company suck ass.

No, I would have never taken the job in the first place. Choice is fun!

They do not tell you the conditions on the job before you get there, and they change pretty much whatever they want when they want. Word got out and they had a hard time manning the job fairly soon after. Guess what they did, manned it with Mexicans, SE Asians and central Americans. All this an hour and 10 minute drive from Heir Trump. What did he do, big fat nothing Burger.

Choices are fun, quit that little jewel drove to to Iowa and worked on a gas fired powerhouse. Not coal, gas, took an $8/hr cut in pay and drove 1300 miles. Many others did similar things to escape that bullshit treatment and good ole MAGA did nothing about the use of these alien workers on 1 of the biggest projects going on in the country at that time. And the first of a kind project in the world that I know of, how about that for companies treating workers fairly?

If employees don't like the way a company is treating them, then the employees leave. And you are correct about our immigration problem. It's been something I've been preaching against the last couple of years.

As long as we have foreigners willing to work for nothing, the jobs will always pay nothing. If we close off the border, no work Visas, no Green Cards, then employers would be forced to treat their employees better; not forced by government, but forced by the supply and demand process of employment.

The original argument is you didn't like that some off us are not happy with treatment we get from companies. I gave you an example and now you are not happy with that.

It's the same with you in every thread, Ray's way and ONLY Ray's way can be right! Nice little nest you live in.

Ray's way is taking action on behalf of yourself--not expecting others to take action for you. In this great beautiful country of ours, most all of us have the ability to change our plight at any given time. It may require some extra work, may require some sacrifice, but only you are in charge of your own life--not government.

People are very myopic. They only see things through their point of view. Seldom do they consider the situation of others. This is especially true of business.

For instance when people see what I do, they ask why I have a full-time job? They just add up the rental money I collect as if I put that in my pocket and spend it freely. If they inquire, I tell them what my bills are, what I have to do to maintain this place, what I have to do to put up with the government here, what I pay in taxes....... It's only then they have a full understanding of what it's like on the other side of the fence. But again, most people don't ask.

Most beginning businesses in our country fail. People work their lives and save every dime only to open up a business and be forced to shut it down in a couple of years. Some businesses do survive, but are open on a week to week basis. They are not sitting on this pile of money many think they are.

Sir you are very myopic, Ray's way is the only way!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course it's the fairest system. What could be more fair than the EC?

The Electoral College gives a politician a need to pander to less populated states just like they pander to larger more populated areas. The more populated states still have the upper hand, but at the very least the less populated states are not totally overlooked.

Well, seeing as you don't know about any other systems, how can you even say this? It's typical of people on forums like this, think they know everything, but know nothing.

But I'll try and educate you.

The EC isn't fair because:

A) It gives more power of votes to people in smaller states. This is inherently unfair.
B) It gives more power of votes to people in swing states. This is inherently unfair.

If you live in Hawaii and you vote Republican, your vote is a waste vote. 62.22% of people voted for Hillary. The highest (except for DC) that Hillary got. Hawaii always votes Democrat, so Republicans votes simple aren't even worth counting. It's not FAIR for Republicans in Hawaii. Their voice isn't heard, no one cares about them.

If you live in West Virginia, Trump's highest (except 3rd in Nebraska) then your vote is a waste of time too.

In fact there are only 12 states in the US where is really actually any point in turning out to vote. Your president doesn't get decided by your vote. Screw you, **** off, you don't choose.

Also, a president can win with less votes, this isn't the will of the people, it's the will of the system. It also tells presidential candidates to attack swing states and ignore strong states. Meaning that Hawaii and West Virginia get nothing. It doesn't matter what you do.

136.6 million people voted in the presidential election.

The states that mattered were
Nevada, 1 million votes.
Colorado 1.3 million votes
Iowa 1.45 million votes
Minnesota 1.7 million votes
Wisconsin 1.8 million votes
Michigan 2.5 million votes
Ohio 3 million votes
Pennsylvania 5.8 million votes
New Hampshire 700,000 votes
Virginia 3.7 million votes
North Carolina 4.4 million votes
Florida 9 million votes

Add these up together you get about 28.2 million people. That's less than 21% of the vote. Yes, less than 21% of people in the US decide the US election. Everyone else's vote is out of the window, who cares?


In Germany with PR they have a 5% run off, this means if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% your vote is a waste of time.

44 million people votes in 2009 federal election in Germany. 41.7 million votes therefore decided who would be in parliament and 2.3 million votes were out of the window. That's 95% of the voters.


Now, you're trying to tell me that a system which has 95% of voters getting to choose their govt is better than 21%? I think you're bullshitting me.


Also, in Germany there were 6 parties that got into parliament. That means that people got to CHOOSE between 6 parties, whereas in the US it was TWO parties. You're telling me this is fairer?

No, you're wrong. And as long as you have your head so far up your partisan ass, you'll be wrong until the cows come home.

How am I wrong? What you want is a pure Democracy which this country is not. We are a Republic, live with that. But since you like numbers so much, here are the populations of some of our states:

Wyoming......... under 590,000
Virginia.............under 625,000
Alaska..............under 742,000
North Dakota....under 760,000
South Dakota around 865,000
Deleware..........under 953,000
Montana...........under 1.1 million

Now if you add all these people up, the population for these seven states is under 5.5 million people. So what is my point? My point is the population in New York City alone is over 8.5 million people. That means there is more power in one city in our country than there are in nine of our least populated states.

While the electoral college doesn't even the score for those smaller states compared to NYC, it at least gives them a larger voice in our elections than they otherwise would have had. Now if you want to add the population of California with NYC, that's a grand total of 40 million people in one state and one city. And since they heavily vote Democrat, that would mean we would be a single-party government forever. It would make no sense for anybody else to vote without the EC system we have today.

Oh and Ray, your statistics SUCK BALLS. If you think Virginia has a population of "under 625,000", then....

My bad, I meant to type Vermont.

Oh wow.

But still Ray, can you tell me how much attention these 7 states got in the US presidential election? Can you tell me how much attention they get in the US senate or house elections? I bet you can't.

Each state gets two Senators regardless of size or population. Much like our Electoral College, the Senate was designed so that smaller states have some power. Congress people are elected as per population. Larger states have more power in Congress, but equal power in the Senate. It's sort of a checks and balances thing.

Now if we elected Senators like Congress, then smaller states would be virtually powerless. Larger populated states would control the entire country, and that would leave a lot of people out of the loop. Their states might not ever get any federal funding, they may not even get disaster relief. No politician would care about them because they would not have enough power TO care about them.

Trump did visit those smaller states that Hillary ignored. Those smaller states still had the electoral votes he needed to win the presidency. Hillary just assumed if she got the EC's of the larger populated states, that would be more than enough to push her into the White House.