Politics Electoral College

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)
And, if there were more Republican voters than Democrats in this country would you still pose this argument?
 
Natebishop3 said:
gerrymandering - manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.

By essentially removing state lines and expanding the Presidential election to just be by popular vote, you're heavily favoring the Democrats, no?
Click to expand...

Because there are more Democrats...maybe....but its not gerrymandering...which is creating boundries....which the republicans are doing in masses to favor themselves.
 
dviss1 said:
Simple math proved you wrong when you exploded our voting populace from 129 million to 325 million.

And you keep saying "the assumption".

Stop assuming and do your own math. You're the one making the assertion that the EC shouldn't exist.

The burden of proof is on you to show why.

The argument of them skipping flyover states is a valid one.

Bottom line:

Hillary LOST Wisconsin because the bitch didn't campaign there. She never SET FOOT in a clearly Democratic state and that's why she lost it.
Click to expand...

Maybe she did. I think it has to do with gerrymandering too.
 
Chris Craig said:
And, if there were more Republican voters than Democrats in this country would you still pose this argument?
Click to expand...

I see far more Republican voters than Democrat. It is only here on S2 where the world is fucked up.
 
Chris Craig said:
Because there are more Democrats...maybe....but its not gerrymandering...which is creating boundries....which the republicans are doing in masses to favor themselves.
Click to expand...

What? Did you really mean this?
You must know the States were in place long before the country, way before the Constitution was written.
 
MarAzul said:
What? Did you really mean this?
You must know the States were in place long before the country, way before the Constitution was written.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying it's not gerrymandering...manipulating boundries to influence votes which both sides have done...it's removing all boundries...it's quite different...pretty much the opposite. Not saying I agree one way or the other with doing it. I am undecided as of yet. I want to learn more and make an informed decision.
 
MarAzul said:
I see far more Republican voters than Democrat. It is only here on S2 where the world is fucked up.
Click to expand...

There are more Democratic voters than Republicans, but there are more independent voters than either Democratic or Republican voters. If most independents lean conservative then there are perhaps more conservative voters than liberal ones. But, it seems the percentage of liberal independents is on the rise.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Do you think a Californian really gives a fuck about what some farmer in Iowa is up to?
Click to expand...
you should be aware of where your tofu and soy latte's come from....Iowa soy bean farmers! Then again...just tip the waitress and order an Iowan prime rib or pork chop ….oh shit...even the popcorn all comes from there....Iowa built Hollywood on popcorn alone damnit!
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
I could give a fuck about a rural state.

Abolish the electoral college. Mind you, third party candidates and independents will gain
Click to expand...

They may. The electoral college facilitates the two party system. Removing it could mean a way for independent and third party nominess to become major candidates.
 
barfo said:
Doesn't matter. The vast majority of voters never see a candidate in person anyway. What does it matter whether people in Long Beach or New Hampshire get to see the candidate in person?

barfo
Click to expand...
Well Dallas might not be a good choice
 
theprunetang said:
There are many reasons. A vote cast in California or any other populous state is worth about 60% of a vote cast in a moe rural state. Only 5 times in US history has a president lost the popular vote and still won the electoral college, and 2 of those instances were in the last 18 years, both times favoring a Republican over a Democrat. Clearly, something is eschewed currently. Small town America is making the decisions for the rest of the nation. It should not be the opposite either. I'm not asking to reverse this in the opposite direction. I personally believe that some tweaks need to be enacted which can help even the current discrepancy.
Click to expand...

I believe all 5 times, where the candidate won the EC and the Presidency, while losing the popular vote, they were republicans....interesting
 
trailblazer18 said:
It's not about actually attending a rally or seeing the candidate in person. If they are in Iowa they will speak to the needs of the Iowa people. They see this on the news, in the newspaper, etc. And now know the promises said to them. If a candidate never visits their area, the candidate never has to address the issues of those people.
Click to expand...

A candidate can appear on local TV without traveling to the area. Candidates can advertise, do interviews, etc.

Take a look at the map here. There were no candidate events in Oregon in the 2016 general election, and just 2 on the west coast. Lots of states got no visits at all.

The idea that candidates visit every state under the current system is not accurate. Most states aren't competitive, so there's no reason to.

New York and Wyoming both got no events in 2016.

barfo
 
Chris Craig said:
They may. The electoral college facilitates the two party system. Removing it could mean a way for independent and third party nominess to become major candidates.
Click to expand...
We don't have the EC in any other election, yet the two party system is firmly entrenched nationwide. Instant runoff is the only thing that could affect it, and since the two parties know that as well, there's zero chance they'd permit it.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
We don't have the EC in any other election, yet the two party system is firmly entrenched nationwide. Instant runoff is the only thing that could affect it, and since the two parties know that as well, there's zero chance they'd permit it.
Click to expand...

I said may. It could provide an avenue that would ultimately lead to third parties having major candidates. I'm not say it would happen immediately upon disbanding the EC.

Though, the primaries are by popular vote, so two parties would still prevail most likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top