It is currently Mon Nov 25, 2024 7:47 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:24 am
Posts: 38635
Location: RST Video
pizza_Place: Bill's Pizza - Mundelein
The Electoral College seems like it might have been a great idea 200 years ago, when it was a lot harder to vote, and a lot easier for colonials to fuck it up.

It should be 1 person, 1 vote.

_________________
Darkside wrote:
Our hotel smelled like dead hooker vagina (before you ask I had gotten a detailed description from beardown)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:12 pm
Posts: 2865
pizza_Place: maciano's
leashyourkids wrote:
TurdFerguson wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Spaulding wrote:
I think they will always get IL, NY, and CA. They pretty much have a guaranteed 104 votes.

What?

The right will always get Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, South Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming, Lousiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kentucky.

They have a guaranteed 170 votes.

You can do better than this.


Yes, Spaulding, your argument makes no sense. No offense. Those states have more electoral votes because they have higher populations. Did you think they were assigned randomly?


Bill carried quite a few of those states however.

Georgia(clinton), Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana(clinton), Idaho, South Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas(clinton *2), Wyoming, Lousiana(clinton *2), Tennessee(clinton *2), Oklahoma, Kentucky (clinton *2)

You can add a few more auto Dem states with Washington(12),Oregan(7),MN(10), Mass(11),RI(4), CT(7), NJ(14), DE(3) MD(10), DC(3) and VA (13) You have to go back to Reagan before any of those states flip.

Shame on her for losing WI(10) , MI(16), and PA(20). First time those flipped since Reagan.


That's not the point, though. There is no inherent advantage for a Democrat simply because more heavily populated states carry more electoral votes. If it was one man, one vote, that same philosophy would hold true - California would account for way more votes than North Dakota.


I can agree with that point, actually, you can make a point the larger the population, there is a penalty in the electoral college. As each state automatically gets 2 votes for the senators, it will skew the weighting toward the smaller states.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
TurdFerguson wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
TurdFerguson wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Spaulding wrote:
I think they will always get IL, NY, and CA. They pretty much have a guaranteed 104 votes.

What?

The right will always get Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, South Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming, Lousiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kentucky.

They have a guaranteed 170 votes.

You can do better than this.


Yes, Spaulding, your argument makes no sense. No offense. Those states have more electoral votes because they have higher populations. Did you think they were assigned randomly?


Bill carried quite a few of those states however.

Georgia(clinton), Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana(clinton), Idaho, South Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas(clinton *2), Wyoming, Lousiana(clinton *2), Tennessee(clinton *2), Oklahoma, Kentucky (clinton *2)

You can add a few more auto Dem states with Washington(12),Oregan(7),MN(10), Mass(11),RI(4), CT(7), NJ(14), DE(3) MD(10), DC(3) and VA (13) You have to go back to Reagan before any of those states flip.

Shame on her for losing WI(10) , MI(16), and PA(20). First time those flipped since Reagan.


That's not the point, though. There is no inherent advantage for a Democrat simply because more heavily populated states carry more electoral votes. If it was one man, one vote, that same philosophy would hold true - California would account for way more votes than North Dakota.


I can agree with that point, actually, you can make a point the larger the population, there is a penalty in the electoral college. As each state automatically gets 2 votes for the senators, it will skew the weighting toward the smaller states.


Yes, you can. Therefore, the Republicans would have an advantage, not the Democrats, as was being posited.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43570
leashyourkids wrote:
Yes, you can. Therefore, the Republicans would have an advantage, not the Democrats, as was being posited.

But Spaulding feels differently.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:12 pm
Posts: 2865
pizza_Place: maciano's
leashyourkids wrote:

Yes, you can. Therefore, the Republicans would have an advantage, not the Democrats, as was being posited.


Hard to say as DEMs would get a bonus having 6 of the 10 smallest states and then penalized for having a bunch of population in the biggest states.

The biggest question I have with the electoral college is how many people don't vote in these non-battleground states as it doesn't really matter. I was a proponent of voting 3rd party in non-battle ground states as a protest against the crap that both parties offered up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 10:39 am
Posts: 1493
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
Nomination denied. Nothing wrong with it. Large states are already given more electoral votes based on total population including illegal aliens. The deck is already stacked for the Democratic party. They lost because they failed.

_________________
God is the uncaused cause of the universe. He had no beginning and has no end. He is not bound by the laws of the universe he created.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
>> http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire U.S. It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes, and will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more. The bill has passed one chamber in 12 additional states with 96 electoral votes. Most recently, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, and 37–21 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House.

>> http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
(best to just go to the page and read)

>> http://www.longisland.com/news/11-08-16/cuomo-legislation-nys-national-popular-vote-compact.html

Albany, NY - November 7, 2016 - Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today signed legislation that secures New York's place on the list of states that have joined National Popular Vote compact. By signing this legislation, Governor Cuomo seeks to guarantee that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election.
...
By signing on to the National Popular Vote Compact, New York pledges to award its 29 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in ALL 50 States plus the District of Columbia, but only to take effect once enough other states have passed identical legislation to comprise a majority of the Electoral Colleges 538 votes. The compact currently contains 165 of the necessary 270 electoral votes (61 percent).
...
The compact has now been enacted through legislation in 10 states: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as Washington D.C.


(Didn't know Illinois was on board.)

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Drake LaRrieta wrote:
Nomination denied. Nothing wrong with it. Large states are already given more electoral votes based on total population including illegal aliens. The deck is already stacked for the Democratic party. They lost because they failed.


What the hell do illegal aliens have to do with the Electoral College?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Don Tiny wrote:
>> http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire U.S. It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes, and will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more. The bill has passed one chamber in 12 additional states with 96 electoral votes. Most recently, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, and 37–21 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House.

>> http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
(best to just go to the page and read)

>> http://www.longisland.com/news/11-08-16/cuomo-legislation-nys-national-popular-vote-compact.html

Albany, NY - November 7, 2016 - Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today signed legislation that secures New York's place on the list of states that have joined National Popular Vote compact. By signing this legislation, Governor Cuomo seeks to guarantee that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election.
...
By signing on to the National Popular Vote Compact, New York pledges to award its 29 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in ALL 50 States plus the District of Columbia, but only to take effect once enough other states have passed identical legislation to comprise a majority of the Electoral Colleges 538 votes. The compact currently contains 165 of the necessary 270 electoral votes (61 percent).
...
The compact has now been enacted through legislation in 10 states: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as Washington D.C.


(Didn't know Illinois was on board.)

Good to see.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 10:39 am
Posts: 1493
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
leashyourkids wrote:
Drake LaRrieta wrote:
Nomination denied. Nothing wrong with it. Large states are already given more electoral votes based on total population including illegal aliens. The deck is already stacked for the Democratic party. They lost because they failed.


What the hell do illegal aliens have to do with the Electoral College?


The amount of electoral votes is based on the number of people living in a state whether they are legal or not.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... t-in-2016/

_________________
God is the uncaused cause of the universe. He had no beginning and has no end. He is not bound by the laws of the universe he created.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
leashyourkids wrote:
Drake LaRrieta wrote:
Nomination denied. Nothing wrong with it. Large states are already given more electoral votes based on total population including illegal aliens. The deck is already stacked for the Democratic party. They lost because they failed.


What the hell do illegal aliens have to do with the Electoral College?


He's talking about Mexicans. Once we get rid of them, the Electoral College will be great again.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36 pm
Posts: 19371
Election strategy is much different. People in hopeless states would actually vote. Trump would have actually tried to get votes out in California.

_________________
Frank Coztansa wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Not over yet.
Yes it is.


CDOM wrote:
When this is all over, which is not going to be for a while, Trump will be re-elected President.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Chus wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Drake LaRrieta wrote:
Nomination denied. Nothing wrong with it. Large states are already given more electoral votes based on total population including illegal aliens. The deck is already stacked for the Democratic party. They lost because they failed.


What the hell do illegal aliens have to do with the Electoral College?


He's talking about Mexicans. Once we get rid of them, the Electoral College will be great again.

Image

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Found elsewhere on the internets ... not the worst thing I've read on a possible 'pro' re: the Electoral College:

Whenever I hear this question, I feel like it's implied that the popular vote result of the most recent election is the more accurate one for gauging the will of the people, and the electoral vote is just messing with its superior counterpart. Like you said, it would be different, even from the outset.

For one thing, candidates wouldn't campaign at all in battleground states, since the risk-reward ratio would be so astronomical. Instead of a few thousand individual voters deciding ten electoral votes, a few thousand voters would decide a few thousand popular votes out of a hundred million.

Instead candidates would use their ground games in contested states to try to shift the tone of the whole area. If that happened the candidates would then try to galvanize the area by visiting and campaigning, but still with far less than their visits to crowds where most people are either for them or undecided, statewide. With a popular vote, if it's that close, it's practically a wash, and your campaign is better served going somewhere that your undecided voters only have neighbors on your side, so there's less friction to them supporting you.

If anyone thinks America is divided now, there's an argument to be made that it would fundamentally more so if elections were decided by a popular vote. Democrats would stick to the coasts and Republicans would stick to the flyovers. Or urban centers vs. rural centers--states wouldn't even matter anymore, in which case Democrats would stick to major cities and Republicans would do a lot more traveling. That might just engender devotion to one and hostility to the other, since one would be campaigning to you and the other wouldn't be at all. Which would in turn lead them to pander to you and give an opportunity for a much bigger "us vs. them" mentality to flourish.

I think people are generally civil and imagine what I just described as extreme hyperbole, but I don't think people who want to switch to a completely popular vote appreciate that it's even a possibility, much less that it's only one thing that could be fundamentally different about all of US politics afterwards.

Maybe it would be for the better, maybe not, but it bugs me that people who support the idea don't actually talk about its ramifications, which makes me think they're not espousing it on its merits, but because they're unhappy with the election results and it seems at first blush more noble and democratic. It may be, but how would we know unless they developed their thoughts and told them to the rest of us?

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:24 am
Posts: 38635
Location: RST Video
pizza_Place: Bill's Pizza - Mundelein
Drake LaRrieta wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Drake LaRrieta wrote:
Nomination denied. Nothing wrong with it. Large states are already given more electoral votes based on total population including illegal aliens. The deck is already stacked for the Democratic party. They lost because they failed.


What the hell do illegal aliens have to do with the Electoral College?


The amount of electoral votes is based on the number of people living in a state whether they are legal or not.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... t-in-2016/


My god you are a fucking idiot.

_________________
Darkside wrote:
Our hotel smelled like dead hooker vagina (before you ask I had gotten a detailed description from beardown)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group