Not what a couple of guys on the Supreme Council are saying.
Not what the Catholic Church, evangelicals say. Somehow what say/feel is a sin ends up being criminalized.
Electoral College idiocy
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
Not what the Catholic Church, evangelicals say. Somehow what say/feel is a sin ends up being criminalized.
Yeah, CA gets more electors. But every person is spread across fewer people—-only 30,000—instead of 7M (in WA). The real problem in the winner take all approach where states like CA, NY, WA, get more electoral votes than represent the people in the state.
If you want more representation in the electoral college—individually—let your congressional district vote how it wants, rather than being forced to go with a candidate they don’t want. Do you really think Asotin, Benton, Adams, etc counties wanted their district vote to go to Biden? Or the district surrounding Austin, TX to go to Trump?
Not quite. I worked out the math. Currently CA has 4.5 more votes than WA. Going back to 30,000 per district, they have more than 5x. Right now WA is getting screwed by congress.
What is the “Supreme Council?”
I’m not aware of the Pope, papal bull, synod, or other ecclesiastical body calling for your imprisonment. Please do share.
For someone who gets all bent out of shape when you get called out on your posts, you probably shouldn't be calling anyone a wing nut.
I've known Sudy for 20 plus years and he is as good a fella as it gets
If someone believes is God or has a different opinion than you, so fng what?
He never preached to me about religion or politics ..and it certainly never got in the way of a respectable drinking session or a good BBQ(and respectable drinking)
All this is to say he certainly isn't a wing nut.
If everyone would follow the advice of Anthony Bourdain and have a drink and or meal with someone you have nothing in common with and actually listen, our country would be a lot better off.
What's funny about the electoral college and our "democratic republic" is how undemocratic it is. Politics have always been self-interested and corrupt but it's amazing to see how all of the quiet things are being said out loud these days and nobody cares enough to do anything about it. Political gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle have created a situation where few states actually have any kind of democratic balance. It's been long known in Kansas that the only elections that matter are the primaries. That's where you get to pick what kind of Republican you are going to vote for if you are in a red district or what kind of Democrat in a blue. Whether you live in Kansas or Washington, your vote doesn't really count with the way that the system currently is.
That said, only a fool thinks that our country's founding fathers really wanted any kind of actual democracy. Our entire country was founded on the idea that the unwashed masses were incapable of making decisions and that wealthy landowners would be the ones who really ran things and made all decisions. As crooked and imbalanced as things are right now, it's amazing how much worse things used to be. Early elections in our country were shams where the already powerful just picked which one of their buddies that they were going to support and the rest of the population just had to live with the decisions made.
If I was able to make one change to the electoral college, it would be that the electoral votes would be apportioned based on the actual vote in each state with the lead vote getter being given the rounding advantage. I don't know if it would really change much, but it was frustrating to cast a vote for Bush I in 1992 and Bush II in 2000 and know that it didn't matter.
Exactly. That’s why they created a republic not a democracy. It revisionist history to think we ever were a democracy or were intended to be so. Even in antiquity democracy was good, but not as good as a republic.
Right. The winner take all is what is causing this. And the National Popular Vote movement is trying to nationalize this.
The best kind of politics is local politics. The smaller the group, the more you know them and the more they know you. They are more responsive and knowledgeable. This constant push to nationalize everything is making the government less responsive, less aware, less capable of operating efficiently and responsibly.
The Catholic Church views contraception as a sin, along with evangelicals.Red states haven’t criminalized it, yet. Too busy criminalizing women‘s freedom of movement right now. They sure are talking about it, now that they’ve got abortion in their pockets. Thomas and Alito are asking for a case.
Which bills are you looking at?
There’s no law preventing women from moving about. Which laws?
The beauty of the electoral college is that it keeps large cities from making rural areas completely irrelevant, which is why it was included.
The downside is that with the growth of our country, the imbalance is more significant than it used to be. As you mentioned above, there should be more electoral votes based on the fact that there are two hundred million more Americans than there were in 1929.
That said, I wouldn't want to add electoral votes unless it meant that they would be awarded proportionally.
There are a number of cities and counties in Texas in particular that are making it a crime to give a woman a ride to get an abortion.
Four Texas counties now ban travel for abortions
The ordinance bars Texans from leaving the state to end their pregnancies.
When the electoral college was set up, there remains virtually nothing of that climate still in existence today. Only men could vote then and the technology didn't exist to handle a direct vote by the people. Plus, it was primarily instituted to give more political weight to the slave states. All of that is now antiquated, as should the EC be.
A democrat voting in IDAHO is a useless vote in that system. But still has value in a direct vote. Same with a Republican voting in New York. Nobody would advocate that senators still be appointed by state legislatures, would they? If not, why not?
Proportionality is just a needless way of dancing around the direct vote of the people. Why give 55% of the electoral college votes to the winner of the state when you could just as easily tally 55% of the total votes? Either way, it's the same outcome. Taihtsat
Youre being disingenuous. Texas counties and cities have already laws in place.
Last edited:
There is something to be said to not allow large metropolitan areas completely control the results of an election. Whether you like the current system or not, it does mean that votes in smaller states and cities matter. A direct vote would encourage politicians to worry about the 20-30 biggest metro areas at the expense of everyone else.
Flat, are you stoned? You are not making much sense.
The electoral system does not change the dynamic of a state vote. The metropolitan areas will dominate because they have more voters. Small states will continue to not mean much because they have fewer electoral votes. In a popular election the same is true.
The problem with the Electoral College is that a minority of voters can elect a President. And have.
Iowa and New Hampshire do not get visits in a direct vote situation. The current system is screwed up too, for what that's worth.
And they don’t now. during the general. WA, OR and similar states don’t get visits during primary or general.
There are a number of cities and counties in Texas in particular that are making it a crime to give a woman a ride to get an abortion.
Four Texas counties now ban travel for abortions
The ordinance bars Texans from leaving the state to end their pregnancies.www.sacurrent.com
What is disingenuous here is framing these laws as limiting the movement of woman.
It’s a crime to drive someone to commit murder in every state. The only difference is some states don’t define abortion as a crime and some do.
There’s no law restricting women from moving about. There is only laws preventing people from transporting people to commit crimes.
Flat, Spike:
Good point(s) on the small (and deep Blue or Red) states not getting visits from candidates. Guess those voters would have to like, read the news, etc. to evaluate the candidates. Granted, in the deep red states, reading and/or operating a computer poses problems.
Seems like splitting hairs to me. A c-section or induction of labor in the first 15 weeks is an absolute guarantee the kid dies. Everyone involved knows it. If they do it anyway, that seems like intentionally killing the child.
So when will the laws restricting traveling to states for mj, or gambling happen? If a state doesn’t call something a crime, a person should be able to freely travel there to do that activity regardless of the laws in their home state.
Looks like we‘ll also be more crimes.The new speaker has linked mass shootings to feminism, divorce and abortion.
No argument from me, other than to point out that murder is a more problematic than my or gambling.
And they can travel. They just can’t be aided. And I have to read the details on the TX law. Idaho passed a similar law, but it was only directed at people transporting minors without parental permission. Is TX different?
Killing the electoral college completely would make the whole US like Washington state - where 1 or 2 counties call the shots for everyone.
The change to make is to have all of the states proportion their electoral votes the way Nebraska and Maine do. Popular votes would then mean a bit more, and would change campaign strategy. It also could give 3rd parties a better shot at being meaningful.
What you call murder.
TX laws says you cant travel through those counties on the way out of state for an abortion.
Then why not just count the popular vote? Awarding proportion of electoral college based off proportion of actual votes is the same outcome, no?
Eliminating the EC encourages MORE voter participation because, although small impact, a singular vote by one citizen from the D side in Idaho would now have EXACTLY the same weight as a counter vote by an R in Idaho. Now...not so much. Taihtsat
Suudy....some interesting thoughts. I guess I do struggle with the morality calling an uborn fetus murder, and taking a life due to lethal injection. You think your God distinguishes between the two? Isn't the murder who has fallen still one of God's creatures. Is it not God's call how to punish?
And if you are someone who thinks God has a divine hand in things, you know how many women have miscarriages? Did God abort the fetus?
Why would you not charge a woman who tried to commit suicide and in turn kill her fetus with murder.
It is an awful slippery slope. We care more about a fetus that can't live on their own than we do kids who are starving and don't have adequate shelter in the cold months.
We certainly don't want to provide the funds with making sure these kids have a decent upbringing.
Finally, if say I was dating a woman and she got pregnant, and I have zero money and not a good father to be, if a man gets a woman who didn't want to have a child pregnant and I didn't take the necessary precautions, are you ok with the state mandate that I get a vasectomy?
Nope, soon to be a called a crime in some states, when the supreme council decides it can be a crime.
Following only the popular vote means candidates only have to visit the biggest cities, and can virtually ignore the rest of the country.
Splitting the electoral vote doesn’t go purely proportionally. It would be pretty easy for Washington to follow the model set by Nebraska and Maine: two electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote, and one electoral vote to the winner (by popular vote) of each congressional district. Dems would be virtually guaranteed 2 districts, and have a likely advantage in 2 more, and probably the popular vote. Rs would most likely take 2. The other 4 could be competitive.
Candidates would need to focus more on Vancouver than Seattle. And simply eliminating the current model where 50% plus one vote takes all 12 votes changes the whole strategy. It also encourages higher rates of voting - especially in the swing districts - your vote actually makes a difference. Right now, a typical voter in most of eastern Washington May as well not bother.
Thank you for trying to bring some sanity to this discussion. Our fellow Cougs are way off on it.
Completely serious. At best it is an exercise in mental gymnastics. You absolutely cannot prove something that is entirely faith based. If a “believer” is in need of a logical argument ( built on a foundation of illogical premises) in order to validate their faith then I would argue that they lack faith to begin with.
Seriously, you should read the arguments. Faith isn’t even part of the argument. They are logical proofs that start with directly observable phenomena we experience every day, such as cause and effect. You may disagree with the premises (and we can talk about them), but the conclusions follow directly and validly from the premises.
I’d like to reply in detail, but the post would be huge. If you like—and Loyal allows—I will do so. But I’ll give a short response.
An unborn child is human, alive, and distinct from the mother. Killing the child is killing an innocent human being. There’s nothing special about the act of being born that confers protection other than some arbitrary fiat of the law. There’s no principle that protects born people that shouldn’t also apply to unborn people.
As for miscarrriages, what you describe is voluntarism, which isn’t compatible with the Christian conception of God. We can go into more detail if you like, but suffice it to say, no, God did not abort the child.
Finally, if our laws provide for the poor and indigent, I do think they should apply to the unborn as well. Yes, a woman should be eligible for welfare benefits if pregnant if they would otherwise apply to any mother. I thin WIC already does.
You are using “responsible” equivocally. What we describe in our experience as responsibility is not the same as how we apply it to God. Let me dig up the philosophical reference on this and see if i can share the link.
Leave the math to the accountant. And this gets interesting.
OK, CA has 38.916 million people. 54 Electoral votes. 721,000 people per electoral vote.
WA has 7.831 million people. 12 votes. 653,000 people per.
So your 4.5 to 5 is correct but you have it backwards. WA gets more votes/person.
There's more (Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny). Electoral votes are doled out based upon how many reps and senators each state has. So how does this affect, say, small states like Wyoming and S. Dakota? Well they both get 3 electoral votes. 2 senators and 1 rep. Wyoming's People per electoral is 194,000! S. Dakota's is 303,000. Moral of the story? per capita, small states way screw the big states. Red or Blue.
Maybe this weighs into the reason this thing has never been fixed. Smaller states don't want to go popular vote because their relative impact in a Prez election would lessen. Red or blue. 33 states are below the average population of the US. If we assume that MY math holds, all of those states would have some advantage by sticking with the status quo. 33 states. 66 senators. Checkmate.
Edit: The stats.
population by states 2023 - Bing
Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
electoral college by state - Bing
Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
Last edited:
Hey as soon as I straighten out these guys arguing Electoral College, I'm ditching this thread forever. Write your soliloquy.
Similar threads
