Politics 2020 Field - DNC

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Its not, I am just saying I dont “mind” the electoral college and I see why it was put in place. If we want to go with a national popular vote, well ok we can argue its merit. I am just saying theres an discussion to be had.

There are issues with both systems and as with everything it wont be perfect for everyone.

Also in terms of Oregon, look at how active some of representatives are, Wyden and others are in committee’s that make laws for everyone. If we devalue states, Im saying the danger is smaller states will not get proper representation and wont really be allowed at the table, or it at least could play out that way.
Click to expand...

We'd still have Wyden. The electoral college affects only the president, has nothing to do with electing congresspeople.

barfo
 
barfo said:
We'd still have Wyden. The electoral college affects only the president, has nothing to do with electing congresspeople.

barfo
Click to expand...
We would still have Wyden, but I'm saying the danger of losing the electoral college is the federal government would stop inviting guys like Wyden to the table to participate. Why would they some dude from a state with very little voice is just a waste of their time while all the committee's get filled with representatives from larger cities? There is a cause and effect, the electoral college grants state like Oregon a voice nationally that they may otherwise not have. The first step takes away the electoral college eventually you take away the number of congresspeople they have, because hey why in the world does Oregon need people in congress they aren't important, let's just fill it all up with the people from NY, and LA. There's a ripple effect that COULD happen.
 
Invitations out for Debate Watch Party #3, any East Bay lurkers still welcome.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
We would still have Wyden, but I'm saying the danger of losing the electoral college is the federal government would stop inviting guys like Wyden to the table to participate. Why would they some dude from a state with very little voice is just a waste of their time while all the committee's get filled with representatives from larger cities? There is a cause and effect, the electoral college grants state like Oregon a voice nationally that they may otherwise not have. The first step takes away the electoral college eventually you take away the number of congresspeople they have, because hey why in the world does Oregon need people in congress they aren't important, let's just fill it all up with the people from NY, and LA. There's a ripple effect that COULD happen.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's a slippery slope, and we know how dangerous those can be. If you allow gays to marry, then pretty soon a man can marry a goat.

barfo
 
Hoopguru said:
I couldn't imagine the 30 million plus now, people in So Cal & other densely populated areas determining the government of the USA. Thats exactly what the forefathers wanted to prevent.
Sure, it could be a definite political advantage to based everything on regional dense populations, thankfully its not.
Cities like LA, NY, Chicago have not earned the right to represent the majority, imo.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the Electoral Vote (a fine idea for the 18 century but an idea that does not really make sense in a world where we can talk to millions of people across the world within seconds of trying to provide our answer) is discrimination against people based on their geographic location. A questionable idea for a country that was founded on the idea that all people are created equal.

Basically you are against the equal rights of people because they choose to live in a populated area.
 
andalusian said:
Unfortunately, the Electoral Vote (a fine idea for the 18 century but an idea that does not really make sense in a world where we can talk to millions of people across the world within seconds of trying to provide our answer) is discrimination against people based on their geographic location. A questionable idea for a country that was founded on the idea that all people are created equal.

Basically you are against the equal rights of people because they choose to live in a populated area.
Click to expand...

Let's extrapolate this a bit. Does a country make sense? I can talk to someone in Germany today, so why should our governments be different should my voice be any less meaningful to the government there? Then what we just have one huge government, where the majority rules, and if you don't share the same values, or have different needs, it simply doesn't matter. Geography does create different needs for people, like Farms, Mountains, Forested Area, Cities, they all have different things that are vital to their day to day to lives. Isn't it just as much discrimination if the only places that matter are those who live in big cities? If you don't fit into the mold of what the government officials deem necessary for their own gain then you have no place in society?

There's an argument to be made for all of that and I get it, but there are also dangers to it, just like any form of government.
 
barfo said:
Sure, it's a slippery slope, and we know how dangerous those can be. If you allow gays to marry, then pretty soon a man can marry a goat.

barfo
Click to expand...

At least banging the nanny wouldn’t be a problem.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Let's extrapolate this a bit. Does a country make sense? I can talk to someone in Germany today, so why should our governments be different should my voice be any less meaningful to the government there? Then what we just have one huge government, where the majority rules, and if you don't share the same values, or have different needs, it simply doesn't matter. Geography does create different needs for people, like Farms, Mountains, Forested Area, Cities, they all have different things that are vital to their day to day to lives. Isn't it just as much discrimination if the only places that matter are those who live in big cities? If you don't fit into the mold of what the government officials deem necessary for their own gain then you have no place in society?

There's an argument to be made for all of that and I get it, but there are also dangers to it, just like any form of government.
Click to expand...

If you accept that argument (yours, I mean), basically that places matter more than people, then Oregon doesn't make sense as a state, and needs to be split up. The land of Harney County deserves self rule just as much the land of Wyoming, doesn't it? So maybe we should split Oregon up into 36 separate states along county lines. I think every county would like to have the freedom to do what it wants.

But then you've still got a problem, because east Multnomah is nothing like the west, so you really need smaller divisions. And I don't like my next door neighbor, so I should have a separate government than him. And the wife and I don't always agree, so probably she needs her own state. Are children states? What about the unborn, are they sovereigns?

barfo
 
andalusian said:
Unfortunately, the Electoral Vote (a fine idea for the 18 century but an idea that does not really make sense in a world where we can talk to millions of people across the world within seconds of trying to provide our answer) is discrimination against people based on their geographic location. A questionable idea for a country that was founded on the idea that all people are created equal.

Basically you are against the equal rights of people because they choose to live in a populated area.
Click to expand...
Not really. You can live wherever one likes big dense city or rural Montana. Each get a percentage of representation for electoral college.
Where you want to only regions with great populations to control the vote for president.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Let's extrapolate this a bit. Does a country make sense? I can talk to someone in Germany today, so why should our governments be different should my voice be any less meaningful to the government there? Then what we just have one huge government, where the majority rules, and if you don't share the same values, or have different needs, it simply doesn't matter. Geography does create different needs for people, like Farms, Mountains, Forested Area, Cities, they all have different things that are vital to their day to day to lives. Isn't it just as much discrimination if the only places that matter are those who live in big cities? If you don't fit into the mold of what the government officials deem necessary for their own gain then you have no place in society?

There's an argument to be made for all of that and I get it, but there are also dangers to it, just like any form of government.
Click to expand...

So, you believe that farmers are worth more than nurses in a big city? Or that someone that drills oil in Alaska is worth more than a Doctor in NYC?

The argument is very simple, if we strive to treat every one as equal - the choice of location to live should not be one that effects the weight of their vote. Simple as that. Anything else is just words that hide discrimination (in this case, geographic discrimination).
 
Hoopguru said:
Not really. You can live wherever one likes big dense city or rural Montana. Each get a percentage of representation for electoral college.
Where you want to only regions with great populations to control the vote for president.
Click to expand...

The flaw with your argument is that Each one does get the same percentage of the representation of the electoral vote. A Vote in Wyoming impacts 3 times as much of the electoral vote as a vote in California does.

The argument that only regions with great population control the vote to president is wrong - About 42% of the California voting population voted for Trump - so with a popular vote it is not as if all the votes in California continue to go to the Democrats and they gain from other places. (And likewise, 43% of Texas voted Democrat).

My opinion is that the Electoral vote is discriminatory and outdated - and frankly, I do not like the fact that as someone who lives in California - my vote is worth less. It is bad enough that for every $1 I pay in federal taxes less than a $1 comes back to California in Federal aid, and likewise people in Alaska would get more than $1 in federal aid for every $1 they pay in federal tax. It is a classic case of taxation without representation. Ironic that the people that talk about traditional values and what the founders set are the ones that oppose this.
 
andalusian said:
So, you believe that farmers are worth more than nurses in a big city? Or that someone that drills oil in Alaska is worth more than a Doctor in NYC?

The argument is very simple, if we strive to treat every one as equal - the choice of location to live should not be one that effects the weight of their vote. Simple as that. Anything else is just words that hide discrimination (in this case, geographic discrimination).
Click to expand...
The flaw in your logic is that you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for politicians to decide that since only the population centers matter that they can discriminate against lower populated areas. I'm saying that they should all have a voice, and the problem with the popular vote is that eventually, it could turn into well no one matters but those in large cities. That is also discrimination.
 
andalusian said:
So, you believe that farmers are worth more than nurses in a big city? Or that someone that drills oil in Alaska is worth more than a Doctor in NYC?

The argument is very simple, if we strive to treat every one as equal - the choice of location to live should not be one that effects the weight of their vote. Simple as that. Anything else is just words that hide discrimination (in this case, geographic discrimination).
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that one way is better than the other, just that both ways can have unintended long term consequences. You said it's your opinion that it was fine 200 years ago, well wasn't it discrimination then too by your definition of it, it's not like 2019 came and everything's different now. Just a.) I don't mind the electoral college "that much", even though as an Oregonian my vote doesn't matter, I understand that my vote isn't really for the president, my vote goes to what the state will vote for. b) I don't think a national popular vote is going to all of a sudden make it all better, people will still be pissed when their candidate doesn't win.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
The flaw in your logic is that you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for politicians to decide that since only the population centers matter that they can discriminate against lower populated areas. I'm saying that they should all have a voice, and the problem with the popular vote is that eventually, it could turn into well no one matters but those in large cities. That is also discrimination.
Click to expand...

If everyone gets the same vote - how is it discrimination?

People should always vote based on what they care for - and their vote should count the same. The issues that get more votes are the ones that matter to more people and therefore the ones that should be a policy priority.

If more people decide that they like the color red over the color blue is that discrimination? This is an absurd idea.

You are basically aggregating all people in rural areas as one - where the popular vote shows that this is not the case - Alaska is not all Republican just as California is not all Democrat.

The idea that someone that lives in a rural area is more important than someone that lives in an urban area is the same as the idea that someone that people that wear skirts are worth less than people that wear pants. It's absurd. The popular vote fixes it very simply - everyone's vote is worth exactly the same.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I'm not saying that one way is better than the other, just that both ways can have unintended long term consequences. You said it's your opinion that it was fine 200 years ago, well wasn't it discrimination then too by your definition of it, it's not like 2019 came and everything's different now. Just a.) I don't mind the electoral college "that much", even though as an Oregonian my vote doesn't matter, I understand that my vote isn't really for the president, my vote goes to what the state will vote for. b) I don't think a national popular vote is going to all of a sudden make it all better, people will still be pissed when their candidate doesn't win.
Click to expand...

I said I understand why this was done to appease the smaller states in the 18 century - where their issues were not easily understood and communicated to other parts of the country. This is no longer the case. If there is a mass murder in Texas people in NY are upset about it - and when Hawaii was bombed in WW2 the people of Chicago did not shrug their shoulders.

The electoral vote was a way to solve a problem that is no longer relevant, it was meant to ensure that we level the field - unfortunately, when the cause is no longer relevant - it leads to tilt the influence in the opposite direction. It does the opposite of what it was supposed to do.
 
andalusian said:
I said I understand why this was done to appease the smaller states in the 18 century - where their issues were not easily understood and communicated to other parts of the country. This is no longer the case. If there is a mass murder in Texas people in NY are upset about it - and when Hawaii was bombed in WW2 the people of Chicago did not shrug their shoulders.

The electoral vote was a way to solve a problem that is no longer relevant, it was meant to ensure that we level the field - unfortunately, when the cause is no longer relevant - it leads to tilt the influence in the opposite direction. It does the opposite of what it was supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Just curious, how many folks in the urban areas of California do you suppose know anything about, or care about, farm problems of Midwest farmers?
 
andalusian said:
I said I understand why this was done to appease the smaller states in the 18 century - where their issues were not easily understood and communicated to other parts of the country. This is no longer the case. If there is a mass murder in Texas people in NY are upset about it - and when Hawaii was bombed in WW2 the people of Chicago did not shrug their shoulders.

The electoral vote was a way to solve a problem that is no longer relevant, it was meant to ensure that we level the field - unfortunately, when the cause is no longer relevant - it leads to tilt the influence in the opposite direction. It does the opposite of what it was supposed to do.
Click to expand...
I believe the concerns are still relevant, just because means of communication have gotten better doesn't mean that communication itself is better. There are just new ways for us to communicate how much we piss each other off (the general us not you and I specifically).

I get that the Popular vote may be fine, but I don't agree with you that it's some simple solution everyone will be happy. Fact is it'll be about the same number of people who are pissed off at election outcomes.
 
e_blazer said:
Just curious, how many folks in the urban areas of California do you suppose know anything about, or care about, farm problems of Midwest farmers?
Click to expand...

How many of the 42% of the vote in Iowa that voted Democrat do you think do not know it?

I can also flip the question on you - how many of the farmers in Wyoming whose vote is worth 3 times as much as the electoral vote of the voter in California know about the issues of the Urban dwellers in California (or NYC or Chicago).
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I get that the Popular vote may be fine, but I don't agree with you that it's some simple solution everyone will be happy. Fact is it'll be about the same number of people who are pissed off at election outcomes.
Click to expand...

I am sure not everyone will be happy. It is never the case. I just think it makes more sense to not have the majority unhappy. That's the basic idea of democracy - if there is a union that is not a tyranny - it is the vote of the majority that should decide. Once you say no to it (which the Electoral vote has multiple times in recent elections) - it is a problem.
 
andalusian said:
I am sure not everyone will be happy. It is never the case. I just think it makes more sense to not have the majority unhappy. That's the basic idea of democracy - if there is a union that is not a tyranny - it is the vote of the majority that should decide. Once you say no to it (which the Electoral vote has multiple times in recent elections) - it is a problem.
Click to expand...

As I said above, I'm not totally averse to a popular vote for the office of president, but that is not what the constitution currently provides for as the process to elect a president. I think that there are valid arguments to be made in favor and against both the current system and a popular vote. There may be some sort of compromise position that makes sense. My only serious point on the topic is that if we're going to propose a change to how we elect the president, it should be publicly debated in a thorough manner and the process of amending the constitution should be followed precisely. This current end around that blue states are attempting to pull through the NPVC is certain to do nothing but cause future problems.
 
The trick with the current system is that you have to blow them out...can't be a buzzer beater election. We need candidates people actually want to vote for again. I think Trump will get blown out next time even with the electoral system.
 
riverman said:
The trick with the current system is that you have to blow them out...can't be a buzzer beater election. We need candidates people actually want to vote for again. I think Trump will get blown out next time even with the electoral system.
Click to expand...

My fear is that when trump loses he/his followers/cult will say it was rigged and create complete and utter chaos.
 
e_blazer said:
That’s a fine model to propose; it’s just not consistent with the constitution. This whole notion that the candidate that gets the most votes nationwide should be president is just bad civics that continues to be foisted off on the public by media that should know better. There is no such thing as a national presidential election. There are 50 state elections to select electors who pick the president. If we want to change that then have a proper national debate on the subject and amend the constitution.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm all for amending that part of the Constitution.
 
calvin natt said:
My fear is that when trump loses he/his followers/cult will say it was rigged and create complete and utter chaos.
Click to expand...
Me too. He's intimated in the past that might happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top