Allright, gotta do an OT political thread

[Flatlandcoug]

IMHO the Electoral College should never go away. Take WA state as an example. Majority of the state votes R. The Seattle votes D. More people in Seattle and control the state. Now take the country NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly. Those 4 cities could control the entire country with their votes. Smaller states will be left out and not all voices being heard

As I said in my original post, there are reasons to keep the electoral college. I would just prefer that they pro-rate votes in each state. In 2020, Trump got 56% of the vote in Kansas. With rounding up for the winner, Trump would have gotten 4 electoral votes and Biden would have received 2. In Washington, Biden would have gotten 7 votes and Trump would have received 5 votes. Looking at those two states, Trump would have had one more vote than with the current system.

I do think that the electoral college needs to be rebalanced because it has started to skew a little too rural. Right now, there are 536,000 voters per electoral vote in Florida and only 144,000 voters per electoral vote in Wyoming. That's a little bit more skewed than it ought to be in my viewpoint. That said, as you've alluded to, most of that imbalance was intentional to keep cities from having an outsized influence even more than they already do.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

As I said in my original post, there are reasons to keep the electoral college. I would just prefer that they pro-rate votes in each state. In 2020, Trump got 56% of the vote in Kansas. With rounding up for the winner, Trump would have gotten 4 electoral votes and Biden would have received 2. In Washington, Biden would have gotten 7 votes and Trump would have received 5 votes. Looking at those two states, Trump would have had one more vote than with the current system.

I do think that the electoral college needs to be rebalanced because it has started to skew a little too rural. Right now, there are 536,000 voters per electoral vote in Florida and only 144,000 voters per electoral vote in Wyoming. That's a little bit more skewed than it ought to be in my viewpoint. That said, as you've alluded to, most of that imbalance was intentional to keep cities from having an outsized influence even more than they already do.

Well I must disagree. There are NO reasons to keep the Electoral College, even on a modified basis. Look at your Kansas example. 56% of the popular vote would result in 66.6% of the electoral votes?

And I had to look up the Electoral College rules to understand this Wyoming thing. So each state gets electoral votes according to their # of elected Senators and Reps. I kinda think we had this discussion before. Since each state has 2 senators (already giving the Wyoming's and the Dakotas and other small population states disproportionate political influence), the Electoral College gives them another small but patently unfair leg up. Why should Wyoming voters have 4 times the pull of Florida voters? Of course, if I was King Florida would have no votes and no Senators or Reps either. And be fenced off from the rest of the country.

There is no justification for giving small population states an electoral advantage. Gee, by that logic, lets apportion votes based on acres of land owned. You own 20,000 accres of sagebrush in Wyoming? 150 votes for you. Condo in NY? 1 vote. Seems fair.

Popular vote nation-wide. Popular vote is how every other election in the country at any level works. But the most important election of them all? This stupid, f-ed up ridiculous system. Who cares whether there was a valid reason for it 150 years ago.

Edit: And hey, while we are at it, let's downgrade Black votes to only count for 3/5 of a vote to sort of equate back to the pre-Civil War rules where the slave states got more electoral votes by getting to count their slaves as 3/5 of a person.

 

[95coug]

As I said in my original post, there are reasons to keep the electoral college. I would just prefer that they pro-rate votes in each state. In 2020, Trump got 56% of the vote in Kansas. With rounding up for the winner, Trump would have gotten 4 electoral votes and Biden would have received 2. In Washington, Biden would have gotten 7 votes and Trump would have received 5 votes. Looking at those two states, Trump would have had one more vote than with the current system.

I do think that the electoral college needs to be rebalanced because it has started to skew a little too rural. Right now, there are 536,000 voters per electoral vote in Florida and only 144,000 voters per electoral vote in Wyoming. That's a little bit more skewed than it ought to be in my viewpoint. That said, as you've alluded to, most of that imbalance was intentional to keep cities from having an outsized influence even more than they already do.

Well I must disagree. There are NO reasons to keep the Electoral College, even on a modified basis. Look at your Kansas example. 56% of the popular vote would result in 66.6% of the electoral votes?

And I had to look up the Electoral College rules to understand this Wyoming thing. So each state gets electoral votes according to their # of elected Senators and Reps. I kinda think we had this discussion before. Since each state has 2 senators (already giving the Wyoming's and the Dakotas and other small population states disproportionate political influence), the Electoral College gives them another small but patently unfair leg up. Why should Wyoming voters have 4 times the pull of Florida voters? Of course, if I was King Florida would have no votes and no Senators or Reps either. And be fenced off from the rest of the country.

There is no justification for giving small population states an electoral advantage. Gee, by that logic, lets apportion votes based on acres of land owned. You own 20,000 accres of sagebrush in Wyoming? 150 votes for you. Condo in NY? 1 vote. Seems fair.

Popular vote nation-wide. Popular vote is how every other election in the country at any level works. But the most important election of them all? This stupid, f-ed up ridiculous system. Who cares whether there was a valid reason for it 150 years ago.

Edit: And hey, while we are at it, let's downgrade Black votes to only count for 3/5 of a vote to sort of equate back to the pre-Civil War rules where the slave states got more electoral votes by getting to count their slaves as 3/5 of a person.

Can’t agree with either idea. Assigning electoral votes based on percentage of popular vote would be no different than using direct popular vote. And, using popular vote means that a half dozen cities pick the president. That’s exactly what the EC was designed to avoid.

The argument that popular vote is used in every other election isn’t really relevant, because there’s no other election that’s run nationally. Nothing else is bigger than a single state.

The EC does need to be restructured, but not to be percentage/proportioned to the popular vote. Congressional districts within each state are drawn to include, as close as possible, the same number of voters. So, let each district swing independently. Award 1 vote per district to the candidate who wins that district. That way, Seattle and Portland don’t pick on behalf of Klamath Falls and Yakima, and it gives voters outside of King and Multnomah a little more reason to show up.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Can’t agree with either idea. Assigning electoral votes based on percentage of popular vote would be no different than using direct popular vote. And, using popular vote means that a half dozen cities pick the president. That’s exactly what the EC was designed to avoid.

The argument that popular vote is used in every other election isn’t really relevant, because there’s no other election that’s run nationally. Nothing else is bigger than a single state.

The EC does need to be restructured, but not to be percentage/proportioned to the popular vote. Congressional districts within each state are drawn to include, as close as possible, the same number of voters. So, let each district swing independently. Award 1 vote per district to the candidate who wins that district. That way, Seattle and Portland don’t pick on behalf of Klamath Falls and Yakima, and it gives voters outside of King and Multnomah a little more reason to show up.

Hmm. I don't get this aversion to population centers having sway over who becomes President. I'm a small-town guy, I want to look out for small town values, etc. But my vote should not carry any more weight than some asshole NY living Wall Street broker. We live in a democracy. One person, one vote. The great experiment or whatever the F they call it. Whether you live in NY, Chicago, Washtucna or Ritzville, you should have an equal vote. The Electoral College prevents this. And discourages (IMHO) voter turnout. You are an R in Washington? Why bother? A D in Idaho? Why bother?

 

[mikalalas]

Hmm. I don't get this aversion to population centers having sway over who becomes President. I'm a small-town guy, I want to look out for small town values, etc. But my vote should not carry any more weight than some asshole NY living Wall Street broker. We live in a democracy. One person, one vote. The great experiment or whatever the F they call it. Whether you live in NY, Chicago, Washtucna or Ritzville, you should have an equal vote. The Electoral College prevents this. And discourages (IMHO) voter turnout. You are an R in Washington? Why bother? A D in Idaho? Why bother?

Actually we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic.

The Electoral College system was designed so that 1 city couldn't decide the fate of the entire nation due to a tyranny of the majority.

You asked why?

Take WA as a microcosm.

In WA, Eastern Washington's voice does NOT matter. King County, Seattle determines who governs, wins elections, etc.

Why is that so bad?

Here is a example why.

King County passes taxes, spending, etc, that totally ignores the interest of Eastern Washington in favor of the interest of King County, Seattle.

Eastern WA just has to bend over and get raped in the ass, by Seattle, King County, because Eastern WA has no vote say, because King County, Seattle determines who governs, wins elections

If there was a Electoral College system in WA, Seattle, King County, wouldn't be able to SOLELY determine who governs, wins WA elections, and wouldn't be able to RAPE Eastern WA in the ASS anymore. Instead Seattle, King County, Eastern WA would have about a equal say, and Seattle, King County wouldn't be able to RAPE Eastern WA anymore, and Eastern WA wouldn't be able to Rape Seattle, King County.

Another reason this is important, is that rural areas, have different values, beliefs, morals, religions, Politics, etc, then Metros, BIG CITIES.

IF Rural areas were 100% BLACKS, and Seattle, King County, was 100% White, and if Seattle, King County were 100% Christian, and if Eastern WA were 100% Atheist, and since Seattle, King County, decides who governs, elections, then White, Christian Seattle, King County people could PERSECUTE, BE RACIST, BE BIGOTED, PASS RACIST LAWS against the Rural Black Atheist people of Eastern WA.

All values, races, religions, beliefs, morals, etc, are equal in law, nation, etc, and that's why it's important that the races, religions, beliefs, morals, etc of 1 Big city don't decide elections, who governs, over the rural areas, races, beliefs, religions.

If a BIG CITY decides everything, then those that are born into, live in rural areas are in SLAVERY, BONDAGE to that BIG CITY.

That is why it's important to not let a few BIG CITIES DECIDE EVERYTHING IN NATION BY A POPULAR VOTE over all rural areas, states, etc.

You don't want NYC, LA, CHICAGO, DETROIT, RAPING THE NATION VIA A POPULAR VOTE THE SAME WAY SEATTLE, KING COUNTY CURRENTLY RAPES EASTERN WA.

Back in the 1920's, 30's, 40's, BLACK PEOPLE LIVED IN THE COUNTRY, and NOT in the biggest cities, and were the minority, not the majority, and because of that the SOUTH USED VARIOUS STATE LOCAL POPULAR VOTE ELECTIONS TO PASS RACIST LAWS AGAINST BLACKS

While a Electoral College system would not have stopped that back then, it would have helped a little, stopped it a little tiny bit.

If blacks lived in rural areas, states, and if NYC, LA, CHICAGO, DETROIT, ETC, WERE ALL CHRISTIAN, WHITE, then the POPULAR VOTE could be used to OPPRESS blacks, etc, because the blacks votes wouldn't matter, and the White votes of the biggest cities would decide everything in nation by a popular vote.

That's what a tyranny of the majority and a popular vote is.

The Electoral College helps stop that

The Electoral College does not need to be replaced by a popular vote.

The Electoral College needs to be fixed by either making it more like Maine's system, or by giving each legislative district in the Nation 1 Electoral College vote, that is won by whoever won the popular vote in that legislative district. That way all legislative districts would have a fair, equal voice, vote, no matter where in country they born, live, whether metro Big city, or rural, etc.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

IMHO the Electoral College should never go away. Take WA state as an example. Majority of the state votes R. The Seattle votes D. More people in Seattle and control the state. Now take the country NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly. Those 4 cities could control the entire country with their votes. Smaller states will be left out and not all voices being heard

Those 4 cities have people. Each person eligible to vote has value. The same value that a rural voter has. Just because they are concentrated in an area shouldn't diminish their value.

Do you think the less than 800,000 people in Wyoming should be given an equal weight as the multi-million who live in New York? If you do,you then your example provided runs contrary to that. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[mikalalas]

Those 4 cities have people. Each person eligible to vote has value. The same value that a rural voter has. Just because they are concentrated in an area shouldn't diminish their value.

Do you think the less than 800,000 people in Wyoming should be given an equal weight as the multi-million who live in New York? If you do,you then your example provided runs contrary to that. That's all I have to say about that.

So if Wyoming was 100% black, and NYC was 100% white, and then if white NYC were to decide the election, pass racist laws, rape, etc, black Wyoming, via a POPULAR VOTE, and wyoming wouldn't have any voice, representation, say, wouldn't be able to help determine elections, wouldn't be able to help determine laws, wouldn't have their beliefs, values, morals, that would be different then NYC, represented. And black people born in, living in Wyoming, would be in SLAVERY, BONDAGE to NYC, the same way that EASTERN WA is in SLAVERY, BONDAGE, RAPED BY SEATTLE, KING COUNTY.

So the POPULAR VOTE doing that would be ok. Got it.

 

[mikalalas]

So if Wyoming was 100% black, and NYC was 100% white, and then if white NYC were to decide the election, pass racist laws, rape, etc, black Wyoming, via a POPULAR VOTE, and wyoming wouldn't have any voice, representation, say, wouldn't be able to help determine elections, wouldn't be able to help determine laws, wouldn't have their beliefs, values, morals, that would be different then NYC, represented. And black people born in, living in Wyoming, would be in SLAVERY, BONDAGE to NYC, the same way that EASTERN WA is in SLAVERY, BONDAGE, RAPED BY SEATTLE, KING COUNTY.

So the POPULAR VOTE doing that would be ok. Got it.

The whole Popular Vote over EC topic is MOOT, MUTE anyways because the EC can only be done away with by either:

1. Constitutional amendment(those are extremely hard to get done for good reason, unless it's a TRUE RECOGNIZED emergency, extremely important, etc.

2. A constitutional vote, calling of a convention of the states. this requires about a 2/3 to 3/4 vote of Congress, and then about a 2/3 ratification by a vote of the people. Then once the Convention of the states is convened, and congressional delegates to that convention selected, then any law, constitutional article, everything is considered fair game for changing, proposing, enacting, nominating, etc. Some, any delegate proposes something, then a vote by the delegates, then a ratification vote.

Since neither 1 or 2 is likely to happen(the last constitutional amendment, being a LONG TIME AGO, and the last convention of the states being about 125+ years ago, and since Congress, and the American people don't usually agree on things, then the EC is NOT going to go away despite all the talk and bluster about getting rid of the EC

 

[mikalalas]

Those 4 cities have people. Each person eligible to vote has value. The same value that a rural voter has. Just because they are concentrated in an area shouldn't diminish their value.

Do you think the less than 800,000 people in Wyoming should be given an equal weight as the multi-million who live in New York? If you do,you then your example provided runs contrary to that. That's all I have to say about that.

The JIM CROW LAWS of the South in the 20's, 30's, 40's were done by the POPULAR VOTE

Jim Crow laws would have been harder to enact, if there had been a Electoral College system of 1 EC vote per district, instead of a popular vote.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Actually we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic.

The Electoral College system was designed so that 1 city couldn't decide the fate of the entire nation due to a tyranny of the majority.

You asked why?

Take WA as a microcosm.

In WA, Eastern Washington's voice does NOT matter. King County, Seattle determines who governs, wins elections, etc.

Why is that so bad?

Here is a example why.

King County passes taxes, spending, etc, that totally ignores the interest of Eastern Washington in favor of the interest of King County, Seattle.

Eastern WA just has to bend over and get raped in the ass, by Seattle, King County, because Eastern WA has no vote say, because King County, Seattle determines who governs, wins elections

If there was a Electoral College system in WA, Seattle, King County, wouldn't be able to SOLELY determine who governs, wins WA elections, and wouldn't be able to RAPE Eastern WA in the ASS anymore. Instead Seattle, King County, Eastern WA would have about a equal say, and Seattle, King County wouldn't be able to RAPE Eastern WA anymore, and Eastern WA wouldn't be able to Rape Seattle, King County.

Another reason this is important, is that rural areas, have different values, beliefs, morals, religions, Politics, etc, then Metros, BIG CITIES.

IF Rural areas were 100% BLACKS, and Seattle, King County, was 100% White, and if Seattle, King County were 100% Christian, and if Eastern WA were 100% Atheist, and since Seattle, King County, decides who governs, elections, then White, Christian Seattle, King County people could PERSECUTE, BE RACIST, BE BIGOTED, PASS RACIST LAWS against the Rural Black Atheist people of Eastern WA.

All values, races, religions, beliefs, morals, etc, are equal in law, nation, etc, and that's why it's important that the races, religions, beliefs, morals, etc of 1 Big city don't decide elections, who governs, over the rural areas, races, beliefs, religions.

If a BIG CITY decides everything, then those that are born into, live in rural areas are in SLAVERY, BONDAGE to that BIG CITY.

That is why it's important to not let a few BIG CITIES DECIDE EVERYTHING IN NATION BY A POPULAR VOTE over all rural areas, states, etc.

You don't want NYC, LA, CHICAGO, DETROIT, RAPING THE NATION VIA A POPULAR VOTE THE SAME WAY SEATTLE, KING COUNTY CURRENTLY RAPES EASTERN WA.

Back in the 1920's, 30's, 40's, BLACK PEOPLE LIVED IN THE COUNTRY, and NOT in the biggest cities, and were the minority, not the majority, and because of that the SOUTH USED VARIOUS STATE LOCAL POPULAR VOTE ELECTIONS TO PASS RACIST LAWS AGAINST BLACKS

While a Electoral College system would not have stopped that back then, it would have helped a little, stopped it a little tiny bit.

If blacks lived in rural areas, states, and if NYC, LA, CHICAGO, DETROIT, ETC, WERE ALL CHRISTIAN, WHITE, then the POPULAR VOTE could be used to OPPRESS blacks, etc, because the blacks votes wouldn't matter, and the White votes of the biggest cities would decide everything in nation by a popular vote.

That's what a tyranny of the majority and a popular vote is.

The Electoral College helps stop that

The Electoral College does not need to be replaced by a popular vote.

The Electoral College needs to be fixed by either making it more like Maine's system, or by giving each legislative district in the Nation 1 Electoral College vote, that is won by whoever won the popular vote in that legislative district. That way all legislative districts would have a fair, equal voice, vote, no matter where in country they born, live, whether metro Big city, or rural, etc.

Oh Mik, I hate to insult my fellow posters, but you are just stupid. It is well known (see links below) that in Washington State, King County collects way more in state taxes than it spends. Where does it go? To the less populated (aka Eastern Washington) counties. Who the F pays for I-90 east of the Cascades? Or Highway 2? Not Davenport or Ritzville.

So get your facts straight. Eastern Washington, dumb rednecks that they are (examples: Colfax and Ritzville) are living off the tit of those liberal heathens in King County.

Is King County tax revenue subsidizing the rest of Washington state?

In light of Initiative 976's approval, State Senator Reuven Carlyle, of Seattle, is wondering if Seattle's tax revenue is being unfairly distributed.

www.king5.com

Loading…

ofm.wa.gov

 

[BSpike76]

Can’t agree with either idea. Assigning electoral votes based on percentage of popular vote would be no different than using direct popular vote. And, using popular vote means that a half dozen cities pick the president. That’s exactly what the EC was designed to avoid.

The argument that popular vote is used in every other election isn’t really relevant, because there’s no other election that’s run nationally. Nothing else is bigger than a single state.

The EC does need to be restructured, but not to be percentage/proportioned to the popular vote. Congressional districts within each state are drawn to include, as close as possible, the same number of voters. So, let each district swing independently. Award 1 vote per district to the candidate who wins that district. That way, Seattle and Portland don’t pick on behalf of Klamath Falls and Yakima, and it gives voters outside of King and Multnomah a little more reason to show up.

And now 5 states decide. What’s the diff. between 10 cities or 5 states having all the power?

 

[Loyal Coug1]

And now 5 states decide. What’s the diff. between 10 cities or 5 states having all the power?

Stop making sense.

 

[95coug]

And now 5 states decide. What’s the diff. between 10 cities or 5 states having all the power?

The difference is that laws and policies that fit in NY and LA will often not fit in Boise, Laramie, and Tulsa. The EC was set up so that those rural areas would have some relevance in decisions made. If it’s eliminated, their relevance goes with it.

 

[mikalalas]

Oh Mik, I hate to insult my fellow posters, but you are just stupid. It is well known (see links below) that in Washington State, King County collects way more in state taxes than it spends. Where does it go? To the less populated (aka Eastern Washington) counties. Who the F pays for I-90 east of the Cascades? Or Highway 2? Not Davenport or Ritzville.

So get your facts straight. Eastern Washington, dumb rednecks that they are (examples: Colfax and Ritzville) are living off the tit of those liberal heathens in King County.

Is King County tax revenue subsidizing the rest of Washington state?

In light of Initiative 976's approval, State Senator Reuven Carlyle, of Seattle, is wondering if Seattle's tax revenue is being unfairly distributed.

www.king5.com

Loading…

ofm.wa.gov

Yes there are some things like FARM SUBSIDIES.

What would happen if Eastern WA didn't get those FARM SUBSIDIES?

Eastern WA farmers either wouldn't be able to farm, or would have a harder time, or wouldn't produce as much.

And if those things happened. Guess what. Seattle, King County, would either STARVE due to less Eastern WA production, or they would have to have CA, Florida, or other countries like Mexico feed Seattle, King County.

So Seattle, King County SUBSIDIZING, Eastern WA farmers IS IN THE BEST INTEREST IN SEATTLE, KING COUNTY.

Also Seattle, King County SUBSIDIZING EASTERN WA FARMERS, DOES NOT EXCUSE, JUSTIFY SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, RAPING EASTERN WA BY DOING LOTS OF THINGS LIKE MAKING EASTERN WA PAY FOR SEAHAWK, MARINERS STADIUMS, WHICH ONLY BENEFITS SEATTLE, AND DOES NOT BENEFIT EASTERN WA.

For every 1 thing that Seattle, King County does for EASTERN WA, Eastern WA is raped, forced, into doing 100 things they don't want to do for Seattle, King County, that only benefits Seattle, King County.

And it's not just money, taxes, spending, etc.

Another example

Seattle, King County has more population density, and because of that are more likely to get COVID.

Towns that only have a population of 250 people are not as likely to get COVID.

Based on that, it would make sense for Eastern WA to determine that towns of small, around 250 population, etc, don't need to lock down, etc, like Seattle, King County.

But Seattle, King County made everyone in WA LOCKDOWN, etc.

If there was a Electoral College system, instead of a popular vote, then Eastern WA could have had a better chance to elect someone other then DICTATOR INSLEE, that then would have let districts, cities, counties decide their own policies on whether to lock down or not instead of a ONE SIZE FITS ALL, AND FORCING THE SEATTLE, KING COUNTY WAY ON EVERYONE.

Another example. This from CA.

In CA the governor, liberal, Democrat government, state legislature, said that all churches had to lock down, or be shut down, even tho casinos, places, etc, in Big cities were allowed to stay open, even tho they had more people, more risk of COVID spreading then churches.

In CA Big cities like San Fran, LA, etc, that might make sense.

But instead of letting LA, San Fran set their own COVID policy, and small CA towns set their COVID POLICY, the Governor, Liberals, LA, San Fran FORCED the SMALL RURAL TOWNS, CHURCHES, TO LOCK DOWN, EVEN THO THOSE SMALL RURAL TOWNS DID NOT WANT TO LOCK DOWN CHURCHES, AND LA, SAN FRAN, GOVERNOR, LIBERALS WANTED TO FORCE THE SMALL RURAL TOWNS TO LOCK DOWN CHURCHES, DO EVERYTHING THEIR WAY, ETC, AS PART OF ONE SIZE FITS ALL, ETC.

If CA had had a Electoral College System, then the Small Rural towns in CA might have been able to actually have a voice, stop, prevented LA, San Fran, NAZI's, etc, from FORCING THEM TO LOCK DOWN THEIR CHURCHES, etc.

Eastern WA has been DICTATED TO, FORCED, CONTROLLED, DOMINATED, RAPED, ENSLAVED, HELD IN BONDAGE BY SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, LIBERALS INSLEE, ETC, JUST LIKE THE SMALL RURAL TOWNS to LA, San Fran, CA governor.

 

[mikalalas]

And now 5 states decide. What’s the diff. between 10 cities or 5 states having all the power?

If the Electoral College was changed to where each District gets 1 Electoral vote based on how popular vote went in that district, each district, and if have voters vote at same time, and media blackout, etc, then 5 states wouldn't have all the power, and 10 cities wouldn't have all the power, and the power would be equally spread to ALL.

 

[BSpike76]

The difference is that laws and policies that fit in NY and LA will often not fit in Boise, Laramie, and Tulsa. The EC was set up so that those rural areas would have some relevance in decisions made. If it’s eliminated, their relevance goes with it.

So now the laws/ policies have to cater to 5 states. I still don’t see the difference.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

So if Wyoming was 100% black, and NYC was 100% white, and then if white NYC were to decide the election, pass racist laws, rape, etc, black Wyoming, via a POPULAR VOTE, and wyoming wouldn't have any voice, representation, say, wouldn't be able to help determine elections, wouldn't be able to help determine laws, wouldn't have their beliefs, values, morals, that would be different then NYC, represented. And black people born in, living in Wyoming, would be in SLAVERY, BONDAGE to NYC, the same way that EASTERN WA is in SLAVERY, BONDAGE, RAPED BY SEATTLE, KING COUNTY.

So the POPULAR VOTE doing that would be ok. Got it.

Fortunately that sitch can't materialize. Plus you also would have the other 48 states to mellow out the extremes.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

The whole Popular Vote over EC topic is MOOT, MUTE anyways because the EC can only be done away with by either:

1. Constitutional amendment(those are extremely hard to get done for good reason, unless it's a TRUE RECOGNIZED emergency, extremely important, etc.

2. A constitutional vote, calling of a convention of the states. this requires about a 2/3 to 3/4 vote of Congress, and then about a 2/3 ratification by a vote of the people. Then once the Convention of the states is convened, and congressional delegates to that convention selected, then any law, constitutional article, everything is considered fair game for changing, proposing, enacting, nominating, etc. Some, any delegate proposes something, then a vote by the delegates, then a ratification vote.

Since neither 1 or 2 is likely to happen(the last constitutional amendment, being a LONG TIME AGO, and the last convention of the states being about 125+ years ago, and since Congress, and the American people don't usually agree on things, then the EC is NOT going to go away despite all the talk and bluster about getting rid of the EC

"The whole Popular Vote over EC topic is MOOT, MUTE anyways because the EC can only be done away with by either"

Or to put it another way, it's moot because one of the 2 major parties realizes that if it went poof, then they would never gain the presidency again because they don't cater to the mainstream enough to gain a majority of the votes. That's why. And taihtsat

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

The JIM CROW LAWS of the South in the 20's, 30's, 40's were done by the POPULAR VOTE

Jim Crow laws would have been harder to enact, if there had been a Electoral College system of 1 EC vote per district, instead of a popular vote.

And what's your point? Those laws were unconstitutional at the time they were passed. It took the federal government too long to gain the backbone and political will to stop them.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

The difference is that laws and policies that fit in NY and LA will often not fit in Boise, Laramie, and Tulsa. The EC was set up so that those rural areas would have some relevance in decisions made. If it’s eliminated, their relevance goes with it.

That's why you elect local/state representation. The federal laws apply to the collective and rarely, if ever, affect negatively a specific rural populations.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

So now the laws/ policies have to cater to 5 states. I still don’t see the difference.

Agree. This proportionality (while maybe better than our current dumbass system) is a needless step.

It's akin to the college football ot rules. Just play and extra quarter (or abbreviated qtr) of real football rather than some fvcked up version of the game that they weren't playing for the previous 60 minutes.

Popular vote is EVERYWHERE else EXCEPT that one office. Dumb!!! Taihtsat

 

[altolug]

Agree. This proportionality (while maybe better than our current dumbass system) is a needless step.

It's akin to the college football ot rules. Just play and extra quarter (or abbreviated qtr) of real football rather than some fvcked up version of the game that they weren't playing for the previous 60 minutes.

Popular vote is EVERYWHERE else EXCEPT that one office. Dumb!!! Taihtsat

What other national vote is there besides the Presidential? States control themselves. If I live in Iowa I would not prefer to live by what 5-6 major cities dictate how we should live by their policies. I have lived under a dictatorship and it is not pretty. To me taking away EC feels that way. IMHO a few ruling over the many

 

[mikalalas]

What other national vote is there besides the Presidential? States control themselves. If I live in Iowa I would not prefer to live by what 5-6 major cities dictate how we should live by their policies. I have lived under a dictatorship and it is not pretty. To me taking away EC feels that way. IMHO a few ruling over the many

Agree except your last words, line.

It's NOT a few ruling over the many, it's the TYRANNY of the MAJORITY, from the few BIGGEST CITIES RULING OVER, LORDING IT OVER, FORCING, DOMINATING OVER, ENSLAVING, ETC, IT OVER THE MINORITY, ETC.

 

[BSpike76]

What other national vote is there besides the Presidential? States control themselves. If I live in Iowa I would not prefer to live by what 5-6 major cities dictate how we should live by their policies. I have lived under a dictatorship and it is not pretty. To me taking away EC feels that way. IMHO a few ruling over the many

That’s what we have now. 40% or less of the population controls the senate. Why is it only ok, so long as rural states control?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

What other national vote is there besides the Presidential? States control themselves. If I live in Iowa I would not prefer to live by what 5-6 major cities dictate how we should live by their policies. I have lived under a dictatorship and it is not pretty. To me taking away EC feels that way. IMHO a few ruling over the many

What are those states imposing on you that is so oppressive? More oppressive than your local jurisdiction? Please

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

That’s what we have now. 40% or less of the population controls the senate. Why is it only ok, so long as rural states control?

Bingo!

 

[Loyal Coug1]

What other national vote is there besides the Presidential? States control themselves. If I live in Iowa I would not prefer to live by what 5-6 major cities dictate how we should live by their policies. I have lived under a dictatorship and it is not pretty. To me taking away EC feels that way. IMHO a few ruling over the many

That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this board. "A few ruling the many"? Um, a popular vote means that the majority rules. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[95coug]

That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this board. "A few ruling the many"? Um, a popular vote means that the majority rules. WTF is wrong with you?

Popular vote would mean that we’ll never again see a president who’s not a democrat. And they’ll be increasingly liberal. That might represent the majority of votes, but it’ll represent a tiny part of the country.

 

[altolug]

That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this board. "A few ruling the many"? Um, a popular vote means that the majority rules. WTF is wrong

That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this board. "A few ruling the many"? Um, a popular vote means that the majority rules. WTF is wrong with you?

that may be true…..until you posted

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Popular vote would mean that we’ll never again see a president who’s not a democrat. And they’ll be increasingly liberal. That might represent the majority of votes, but it’ll represent a tiny part of the country.

Umm, what part of democracy and majority rule don't some of you understand? Are we back to thinking land ownership should trump a majority of the voters? And last I looked the two biggest states in the country - maybe 3 if you count Montana aside from Tester, are republican dominated. Although maybe Montana is #4 behind California.....

 

[Loyal Coug1]

that may be true…..until you posted

Oh? Explain to us how a majority of the voting public in a popular vote equates to a few ruling the many.

 

[altolug]

If you read it was the EC president voting. Did Hillary win. No. She had the most votes.
Second if you have 5-6 big cities voting for one certain candidate, those votes will cancel out the other states votes. Compare LA, Chicago, Denver, Philly, NYC. Right there alone cancels out The midwestern states.

 

[95coug]

Umm, what part of democracy and majority rule don't some of you understand? Are we back to thinking land ownership should trump a majority of the voters? And last I looked the two biggest states in the country - maybe 3 if you count Montana aside from Tester, are republican dominated. Although maybe Montana is #4 behind California.....

Montana is completely irrelevant in a popular vote.

Democracy does not necessarily equate to majority rule, and the US isn’t a true democracy anyway. We’re a liberal/representative democracy. In our system, the will of the majority is limited by the Constitution and by the Supreme Court (and if you question that, look at the outcomes of the court’s rulings on gun rights and abortion). This form of government doesn’t focus on majority, but on representation and inclusion. It intentionally gives proportionally greater voting power to rural voters to avoid having the urban ones imposing their will. With the increasing growth of cities, that design isn’t as effective as it once was, which is why the all or nothing system should be scrapped.

But it can’t be replaced by a simple direct vote. We’re not meant to follow basic majority rule, and just looking at the facts of where voters are, we shouldn’t want that. The King county dynamic is not unique - all across the country, there are metro areas with large D populations who drag their states with them. A popular vote would allow that to go national. Look at the proportioning of votes by region in 2016 to see it - Clinton’s support was in and around the cities. In a popular vote, a D candidate who just campaigns in the ~30 biggest cities might be unbeatable.

Even in the electoral winner take all system, a candidate (theoretically) can win by carrying as few as 13 states. They could win by not carrying any state west of the Mississippi. Neither of those represents the country, regardless of how many individual votes they receive.

 

[Stretch 74]

Umm, what part of democracy and majority rule don't some of you understand? Are we back to thinking land ownership should trump a majority of the voters? And last I looked the two biggest states in the country - maybe 3 if you count Montana aside from Tester, are republican dominated. Although maybe Montana is #4 behind California.....

What part of representative republic don't YOU understand?

The Founding Fathers spend months hammering out compromises in how to structure our country in what they felt would be the fairest way. Everyone has known and played by those same rules for over 200 years now, and it has worked pretty darn well. Any change that is pushed through today will simply be a method designed to benefit one party/side/viewpoint to the detriment of the the other. I see no valid reason to do that and risk unknown consequences, since almost everything that gets passed by Congress does have unexpected consequences.

 

[Stretch 74]

Montana is completely irrelevant in a popular vote.

Democracy does not necessarily equate to majority rule, and the US isn’t a true democracy anyway. We’re a liberal/representative democracy. In our system, the will of the majority is limited by the Constitution and by the Supreme Court (and if you question that, look at the outcomes of the court’s rulings on gun rights and abortion). This form of government doesn’t focus on majority, but on representation and inclusion. It intentionally gives proportionally greater voting power to rural voters to avoid having the urban ones imposing their will. With the increasing growth of cities, that design isn’t as effective as it once was, which is why the all or nothing system should be scrapped.

But it can’t be replaced by a simple direct vote. We’re not meant to follow basic majority rule, and just looking at the facts of where voters are, we shouldn’t want that. The King county dynamic is not unique - all across the country, there are metro areas with large D populations who drag their states with them. A popular vote would allow that to go national. Look at the proportioning of votes by region in 2016 to see it - Clinton’s support was in and around the cities. In a popular vote, a D candidate who just campaigns in the ~30 biggest cities might be unbeatable.

Even in the electoral winner take all system, a candidate (theoretically) can win by carrying as few as 13 states. They could win by not carrying any state west of the Mississippi. Neither of those represents the country, regardless of how many individual votes they receive.

And here is the visual about how a small area dominates vast areas of the country.

red blue map by county 2020 at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[95coug]

What part of representative republic don't YOU understand?

The Founding Fathers spend months hammering out compromises in how to structure our country in what they felt would be the fairest way. Everyone has known and played by those same rules for over 200 years now, and it has worked pretty darn well. Any change that is pushed through today will simply be a method designed to benefit one party/side/viewpoint to the detriment of the the other. I see no valid reason to do that and risk unknown consequences, since almost everything that gets passed by Congress does have unexpected consequences.

Nice thing is that we wouldn’t need Congress to approve switching to a district-based electoral vote. It’s up to the state.
Maybe I should write up that initiative.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

And here is the visual about how a small area dominates vast areas of the country.

red blue map by county 2020 at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

So? I'm sure you have travelled around the country. Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas? Lots of square miles, very few people. Even in Washington State. Ever been through Kahlotus or Winona? I just don't get the fixation with land mass as some sort of barometer for what should be the US's governance. Maybe antelopes and prairie dogs should get a vote. Then Wyoming, Utah and the Dakotas would rule the country.

That said, and being the open-minded independent that I am, I spent way too much time this afternoon, post Coug Men's BB game (we won!) reading up on this democracy vs republic thing. IMHO, equal parts of sense and ridiculousness. Below is a link to a pretty comprehensive analysis of democracy vs republic. But it almost muddies the water more than it clears it up. Getting back to our issue at hand, I will never change my opinion that the Electoral College needs to go away. All state governorships (I think anyway), and all US senators are elected by a statewide purely democratic vote. Likewise all representatives (state and federal), are too, with the various districts determined by population, not by how many acres the encompass.

So I will acquiesce to you REPUBLICans (see how that works?) that the US, on a presidential election only basis, is a republic. The winner take all BS state by state is BS, and the disproportionate weight given to the Wyoming's is BS.

What Is Democracy? Definition and Examples

Democracy means “rule by the people.” However, since its emergence in the 5th century BCE, democracy has evolved into many forms.

www.thoughtco.com

So there. Peace, you fascist commies.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Oh Mik, I hate to insult my fellow posters, but you are just stupid. It is well known (see links below) that in Washington State, King County collects way more in state taxes than it spends. Where does it go? To the less populated (aka Eastern Washington) counties. Who the F pays for I-90 east of the Cascades? Or Highway 2? Not Davenport or Ritzville.

So get your facts straight. Eastern Washington, dumb rednecks that they are (examples: Colfax and Ritzville) are living off the tit of those liberal heathens in King County.

Is King County tax revenue subsidizing the rest of Washington state?

In light of Initiative 976's approval, State Senator Reuven Carlyle, of Seattle, is wondering if Seattle's tax revenue is being unfairly distributed.

www.king5.com

Loading…

ofm.wa.gov

horseshit numbers quoted to make a point that isn't necessarily true.

A better number would be tax dollar collected per capita: tax dollars spent per capita, by county or metro area.

 

[Observer11]

Um that is sort of the way democracy works. One vote, one person. Doesn't matter where you live.

We don’t live in a democracy.

The US is a Constitutional representative republic.

So, no. Not one man one vote. It does matter where you live.

Don’t like it, gather a convention of states and change the Constitution.

 

[95coug]

So? I'm sure you have travelled around the country. Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas? Lots of square miles, very few people. Even in Washington State. Ever been through Kahlotus or Winona? I just don't get the fixation with land mass as some sort of barometer for what should be the US's governance. Maybe antelopes and prairie dogs should get a vote. Then Wyoming, Utah and the Dakotas would rule the country.

That said, and being the open-minded independent that I am, I spent way too much time this afternoon, post Coug Men's BB game (we won!) reading up on this democracy vs republic thing. IMHO, equal parts of sense and ridiculousness. Below is a link to a pretty comprehensive analysis of democracy vs republic. But it almost muddies the water more than it clears it up. Getting back to our issue at hand, I will never change my opinion that the Electoral College needs to go away. All state governorships (I think anyway), and all US senators are elected by a statewide purely democratic vote. Likewise all representatives (state and federal), are too, with the various districts determined by population, not by how many acres the encompass.

So I will acquiesce to you REPUBLICans (see how that works?) that the US, on a presidential election only basis, is a republic. The winner take all BS state by state is BS, and the disproportionate weight given to the Wyoming's is BS.

What Is Democracy? Definition and Examples

Democracy means “rule by the people.” However, since its emergence in the 5th century BCE, democracy has evolved into many forms.

www.thoughtco.com

So there. Peace, you fascist commies.

We don’t live in a democracy.

The US is a Constitutional representative republic.

So, no. Not one man one vote. It does matter where you live.

Don’t like it, gather a convention of states and change the Constitution.

Further emphasizing Observer’s point and countering Loyal’s:

If it’s so unfair that Wyoming, Nevada, Utah and the dakotas have disproportionate weight, and those votes are so overvalued…why is it that candidates spend so little time, effort, and money there? If the disproportionality was meaningful, campaigns would pay attention. They don’t.

The reality is that - in the winner take all system - even though individual votes in those states are a larger proportion of an electoral vote, they still don’t hold enough sway to garner attention. California, Texas, and New York - where each vote makes the smallest proportion of electoral votes - are the big prizes, and get attention from both parties. And the “battleground states” - politically split, but with 15+ electoral votes and generally high populations - get the most campaign capital.

And another argument against winner take all - as long as it exists, no 3rd party candidate will truly impact an election. They’ll never pull enough votes to win a state. Under a district-based distribution, they probably still won’t win, but could pull in electoral votes and influence the outcome. And that all by itself could force both parties to abandon their extreme positions and start coming back toward the middle.