|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 9, 2020 5:27:31 GMT -5
Why would people in certain states even vote if only three states would matter in country. There would only be campaigning in three states and nobody would go to rest of country. They would be ignored Right now, it is claimed that only a few "swing states" matter. You are claiming that in a popular vote only a few large state would matter. OK, if you have to have a system where only a few states determine who gets to be president, should they at least be the states with the most people? Or should a much smaller number of people have the choice? Anyway, if we actually had a popular vote, it would not be true that "big states" would decide the outcome. If the people of California voted 51/49, the net votes for the winning candidate would only be 800,000. There are only 4 states with a population smaller than 800,000. So what it would really mean is that candidates wouldn't be able to ignore California. They would have to hustle for votes there, to make it close. Then they would have to work for votes in other states to make up any losses. Which would mean they would have to try to appeal to everyone in every state. Which would be ... um ... the entire point of voting. . Yet another example of hypocrisy from the liberal left. If it was in your favor to support The electoral college you would. If it was in your favor to be against the electoral college politically you would. What you people care about is getting what you want politically. Nots what’s best for the health of your country.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 9, 2020 5:29:33 GMT -5
Right now, it is claimed that only a few "swing states" matter. You are claiming that in a popular vote only a few large state would matter. OK, if you have to have a system where only a few states determine who gets to be president, should they at least be the states with the most people? Or should a much smaller number of people have the choice? Anyway, if we actually had a popular vote, it would not be true that "big states" would decide the outcome. If the people of California voted 51/49, the net votes for the winning candidate would only be 800,000. There are only 4 states with a population smaller than 800,000. So what it would really mean is that candidates wouldn't be able to ignore California. They would have to hustle for votes there, to make it close. Then they would have to work for votes in other states to make up any losses. Which would mean they would have to try to appeal to everyone in every state. Which would be ... um ... the entire point of voting. . Yet another example of hypocrisy from the liberal left. If it was in your favor to support The electoral college you would. If it was in your favor to be against the electoral college politically you would. What you people care about is getting what you want politically. Nots what’s best for the health of your country. No, I wouldn't. You can't make up lies about "what I would support" and then claim I'm a hypocrite because I don't do what you say I would do. That's not how "being a hypocrite" works.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 9, 2020 5:29:57 GMT -5
heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-8-2020Lots of clear explanations in there. 1) Dems wanted a relief bill. 2) Senate GOP gave up on passing one, told the Dems to work with Trump. 3) Trump "negotiated" with the Dems by saying his plan was non-negotiable. 4) Dems refused to take the Trump plan as-is. 5) Trump used this refusal to say that the Dems are blocking Congressional action (when it is actually the Senate Republicans who are doing so). 6) Trump signs Executive Orders that it is likely could not face legal challenge. 7) Trump is ready to frame any legal challenge as "Dems are trying to block your benefits" (despite that the Dems passed a benefits bill more than a month ago and actually want there to be more benefits than Trump does). 8) States are supposed to pay 25% because Trump is taking the money from a disaster relief fund originally intended for things like hurricanes, etc. That law requires states to kick in 25%. Again you’re being dishonest . Democrats wanted all their pet projects in the bill, Republicans are just trying to help the basic needs of every American. For once in your life Democrats, stop trying to kiss the ass of your constituents and do what’s right.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 9, 2020 5:31:35 GMT -5
. Yet another example of hypocrisy from the liberal left. If it was in your favor to support The electoral college you would. If it was in your favor to be against the electoral college politically you would. What you people care about is getting what you want politically. Nots what’s best for the health of your country. No, I wouldn't. You can't make up lies about "what I would support" and then claim I'm a hypocrite because I don't do what you say I would do. That's not how "being a hypocrite" works. . Really if it was against your politics to support the electoral college you would do it? Sure, you betcha!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 9, 2020 5:32:37 GMT -5
No, I wouldn't. You can't make up lies about "what I would support" and then claim I'm a hypocrite because I don't do what you say I would do. That's not how "being a hypocrite" works. . Really if it was against your politics to support the electoral college you would do it? Sure, you betcha! It's called "democracy". And yes, I support it even when the majority of the voters disagree with me.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 9, 2020 5:40:13 GMT -5
. Really if it was against your politics to support the electoral college you would do it? Sure, you betcha! It's called "democracy". And yes, I support it even when the majority of the voters disagree with me. it’s not a democracy when you’re allowing only specific areas of the country to dictate what’s best for the country as a whole. Have you seen the map of voting in the colors of red and blue? The blue is a very small part of the overall map which was almost completely red. You think that’s democracy? When a bunch of Dingaling‘s with no common sense, decide for everyone what’s best ? The same people that have drug use, homelessness, and feel that rioting is perfectly fine?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 9, 2020 5:56:37 GMT -5
It's called "democracy". And yes, I support it even when the majority of the voters disagree with me. it’s not a democracy when you’re allowing only specific areas of the country to dictate what’s best for the country as a whole. Have you seen the map of voting in the colors of red and blue? The blue is a very small part of the overall map which was almost completely red. You think that’s democracy? When a bunch of Dingaling‘s with no common sense, decide for everyone what’s best ? The same people that have drug use, homelessness, and feel that rioting is perfectly fine? You are confused (of course). What we have *right now* "only allows specific areas of the country to dictate what's best for the country as a whole". You have heard of the concept of "swing states", right? A popular vote literally does not depend on "specific areas of the country" at all. It's just simple "majority rules". Do you really think *everybody* in California votes for exactly the same candidate? No, of course they don't. But with the current rules, many of their votes (millions of "red" votes, by the way) are ignored. Under a popular vote system, all votes would count equally. "Red" votes in Massachusetts, "blue" votes in Wyoming -- they would all count the same. It's crazy that you think taking "areas of the country" *out* of the process means that "areas of the country" will end up selecting the President. It actually means exactly the opposite. The problem for you is that you actually like "specific areas of the country to dictate what's best for the country as a whole" -- as long as it is your specific area of the country.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 9, 2020 7:34:37 GMT -5
It's called "democracy". And yes, I support it even when the majority of the voters disagree with me. it’s not a democracy when you’re allowing only specific areas of the country to dictate what’s best for the country as a whole. Have you seen the map of voting in the colors of red and blue? The blue is a very small part of the overall map which was almost completely red. You think that’s democracy? When a bunch of Dingaling‘s with no common sense, decide for everyone what’s best ? The same people that have drug use, homelessness, and feel that rioting is perfectly fine? Land mass doesn't vote. People do.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 9, 2020 7:36:35 GMT -5
It's called "democracy". And yes, I support it even when the majority of the voters disagree with me. it’s not a democracy when you’re allowing only specific areas of the country to dictate what’s best for the country as a whole. Have you seen the map of voting in the colors of red and blue? The blue is a very small part of the overall map which was almost completely red. You think that’s democracy? When a bunch of Dingaling‘s with no common sense, decide for everyone what’s best ? The same people that have drug use, homelessness, and feel that rioting is perfectly fine? Once again holiday, you've been caught red-handed spouting nonsense and b.s. Yet just like Trump, you can never admit you are wrong, right?
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Aug 9, 2020 7:38:25 GMT -5
Win a few more middle America states. Republicans would literally have to win almost every state in country if you went no electoral college while Dems would have to win 2 or 3 and rest of country doesn’t matter. Again the left trying to take the easy no work way out I'm not saying that we should go strictly by popular vote, but a format where electoral votes are split by congressional district (like in Nebraska and Maine), would be more reasonable than a winner-take-all system when Hillary Clinton lost Michigan by less than .25%. This system is even worse than the Electoral College. It would just encourage more gerrymandering. One day, a Democratic candidate will win the presidency by winning the Electoral College without winning the popular vote (just because the EC mostly favors the Republicans, it doesn't mean it always does). When that happens, the right-wing types will suddenly jump on board with going to a popular vote. In the meantime, the GOP continues to push for minority rule (whether it is by vote suppression, gerrymandering, electoral college, under counting the census, etc.). When, in the history of the world, has minority rule ever worked out?
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 9, 2020 7:49:25 GMT -5
I'm not saying that we should go strictly by popular vote, but a format where electoral votes are split by congressional district (like in Nebraska and Maine), would be more reasonable than a winner-take-all system when Hillary Clinton lost Michigan by less than .25%. This system is even worse than the Electoral College. It would just encourage more gerrymandering. One day, a Democratic candidate will win the presidency by winning the Electoral College without winning the popular vote (just because the EC mostly favors the Republicans, it doesn't mean it always does). When that happens, the right-wing types will suddenly jump on board with going to a popular vote. In the meantime, the GOP continues to push for minority rule (whether it is by vote suppression, gerrymandering, electoral college, under counting the census, etc.). When, in the history of the world, has minority rule ever worked out? I think it's less likely that a Dem wins the EC but not the popular vote, and more likely that Texas/Georgia/PA goes "permanently" blue and takes away any realistic chance of an R win. Everyone knows the EC is unfair, the arguments in favor of it have been entirely concocted to justify a system that favors republicans. Once one of the big red states goes blue and does away with that advantage, you will see almost immediate support for either an amendment or NPVIC.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 9, 2020 8:02:23 GMT -5
This system is even worse than the Electoral College. It would just encourage more gerrymandering. One day, a Democratic candidate will win the presidency by winning the Electoral College without winning the popular vote (just because the EC mostly favors the Republicans, it doesn't mean it always does). When that happens, the right-wing types will suddenly jump on board with going to a popular vote. In the meantime, the GOP continues to push for minority rule (whether it is by vote suppression, gerrymandering, electoral college, under counting the census, etc.). When, in the history of the world, has minority rule ever worked out? I think it's less likely that a Dem wins the EC but not the popular vote, and more likely that Texas/Georgia/PA goes "permanently" blue and takes away any realistic chance of an R win. Everyone knows the EC is unfair, the arguments in favor of it have been entirely concocted to justify a system that favors republicans. Once one of the big red states goes blue and does away with that advantage, you will see almost immediate support for either an amendment or NPVIC. I agree with this, although you're assuming the United States survives long enough for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 9, 2020 8:20:28 GMT -5
I think it's less likely that a Dem wins the EC but not the popular vote, and more likely that Texas/Georgia/PA goes "permanently" blue and takes away any realistic chance of an R win. Everyone knows the EC is unfair, the arguments in favor of it have been entirely concocted to justify a system that favors republicans. Once one of the big red states goes blue and does away with that advantage, you will see almost immediate support for either an amendment or NPVIC. I agree with this, although you're assuming the United States survives long enough for that to happen. Blue Texas is much more than a pipe dream this year and becomes likelier every year as people move to the cities and the Hispanic population grows. Its not far off as a one-off in some election and once that happens it will quickly become permanent.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 9, 2020 8:46:44 GMT -5
Oh, sure. I could see blue Texas within a decade. Yet . . .
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 9, 2020 9:53:10 GMT -5
This system is even worse than the Electoral College. It would just encourage more gerrymandering. One day, a Democratic candidate will win the presidency by winning the Electoral College without winning the popular vote (just because the EC mostly favors the Republicans, it doesn't mean it always does). When that happens, the right-wing types will suddenly jump on board with going to a popular vote. In the meantime, the GOP continues to push for minority rule (whether it is by vote suppression, gerrymandering, electoral college, under counting the census, etc.). When, in the history of the world, has minority rule ever worked out? I think it's less likely that a Dem wins the EC but not the popular vote, and more likely that Texas/Georgia/PA goes "permanently" blue and takes away any realistic chance of an R win. Everyone knows the EC is unfair, the arguments in favor of it have been entirely concocted to justify a system that favors republicans. Once one of the big red states goes blue and does away with that advantage, you will see almost immediate support for either an amendment or NPVIC. If all states had gone with 1 EV per congressional district won and 2 EV for each state won - then Trump would have won in 2016: 290-245. If this was done in 2012, I am pretty sure that Romney would have won. I don't have the final votes by congressional districts for Florida - w/o Florida, Romney was leading 258-250 - I am pretty sure he would have won. The Nebraska/Maine model sounds more fair, but it would be a HUGE problem for the Democrats. Clinton won 23 CD with a vote in excess of 80% vs. just one for Trump. Clinton's 22 best CD's were better than Trump's best. A lot of this has to do with mandated minority districts. Prior to the 2000 election - conventional wisdom had the chances of a Democrat winning the EV, but not the popular vote was much more likely than the opposite. As it turned out - the opposite occurred that year. In 1996, Clinton won 51.1% of the vote in California and getting 54 EV. Bush got 51.1% of the vote in California in 1988. Going into 2000 - California was considered a 'safe' state for Gore, but one where he might 'only' get 51-52% of the vote, but get 20% of the EV needed to win. This was considered a huge built-in advantage for Gore going into election night - that he could win the EV even if he lost the popular vote. As it turned out - Gore got 53.5% in California and edged out the popular vote. If 52% in California that year along with a handful more votes in Florida and Gore wins the EV and loses the popular vote. 2016 - Clinton is beating Trump by 30% in California, so this EV/Popular vote dynamic changed from 2000. It wasn't that long ago when Vermont was the most solidly Republican state. It wasn't until 1992 that this state finally flipped Democrat and then 1996 before a Democrat got more than 50%. Vermont voted against FDR all 4 times - and was never close to voting for him. Coalitions can change - so it is tough to think in terms of permanent. I would suggest that once Texas and Georgia become Democrat, Pennsylvania and Michigan will become Republican. The US is like a water balloon - you push in one section and another will get larger. The long term natural state will be 50-50 - as parties adapt and change. The Republican's win the WH just 6 years after Watergate. They win in 1968 after absolutely getting crushed in 1964. The Democrats bounce back and win in 1992 after Reagan's landslide in 1984. Nothing is likely to be permanent.
|
|