Politics Electoral College

[Natebishop3]

Once upon a time black people counted for less than white people. Women counted for less than men. Is it really defensible that urban people should count for less than rural people?

But that's what you're trying to do now. White people are the majority in this country (for now), so should we not engage with the black or latino voter because they're not the majority?

I thought the Liberals were all about diversity, equity, and inclusion? You're not including the rural voters if you do away with the EC.

 

[dviss1]

I will ask again, are you for removing the rights of women to vote? Are you for racial discrimination?

What does this have to do with removing the Electoral College?

 

[dviss1]

Except that candidates don't visit anywhere near every state now, and in-person campaigning isn't terribly important anyway.

How many of us saw one of the candidates in person last cycle? Probably not many, I'll bet.

barfo

I shook Barack Obama's hand when he campaigned in Portland.

Jussayin'.

 

[tlongII]

I shook Barack Obama's hand when he campaigned in Portland.

Jussayin'.

Yes, but I believe that is very rare.

 

[andalusian]

Don't be lazy. You have access to the same search engines as I.

If it is so simple, give me that answer - I did not find it in 2 minutes of search. You are either much better than me at search or you did not find it.

FWIW - I did find the following:

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/acs-rural-urban.html

it shows that in urban areas children are 23.5% of the population vs. 22.3% in rural areas - which means that my assumption was right on the money - the voting population in the largest 5 cities is going to be less than 10% of the population pool.

The bottom line is you're wrong.

If you are so sure I am wrong - show me that my assumption that less than 10% of the eligible voters live in the 5 biggest cities is wrong. You claim to have the data. Let's see it.

So instead of answering your silly question that you can research on your own, answer my good one:

If we rid ourselves of the electoral college how much time do you think politicians would spend campaigning in Oregon?

You know the place that has the same population statewide as San Francisco metro area.

I reject the idea that Oregon is unified in it's needs and that everyone there has the exact same concerns, I also reject that idea that people in Oregon do not have access to media outlets and communication methods and can not be addressed by the candidates via the Internet, TV, Radio etc... - I do not think it matters one bit if a candidate comes to your immediate where-about or not.

 

[andalusian]

I noticed this question earlier. You did notice I chose to ignore it. Any answer I might have seems to have nothing to do with the question at hand.

It is very relevant to your argument - that things should stay exactly as they always were.

 

[MarAzul]

I will ask again, are you for removing the rights of women to vote? Are you for racial discrimination?

I noticed this question earlier. You did notice I chose to ignore it. Any answer I might have seems to have nothing to do with the question at hand.

Aw heck! I will answer.
A correction was made to correctly acknowledge the right of women to vote, by amending the Constitution. I do support this correction
A correction was made to eliminate Slavery, by amending the Constitution. I do support this correction.
A correction to eliminate racial discrimination has not be done in the Constitution. I would not know how to craft such a correction.
A change in how we Elect the President has not been done in the Constitution. I would not support what I think you want.

 

[andalusian]

What does this have to do with removing the Electoral College?

It is related to my discussion with MarAzul that claims that things should never change.

 

[e_blazer]

I shook Barack Obama's hand when he campaigned in Portland.

Jussayin'.

Man, and I high-fived you at the Blazers game. Probably transferred some Obama atoms onto me. I may end up voting Democrat in the next election!

 

[andalusian]

Aw heck! I will answer.
A correction was made to correctly acknowledge the right of women to vote, by amending the Constitution. I do support this correction
A correction was made to eliminate Slavery, by amending the Constitution. I do support this correction.
A correction to eliminate racial discrimination has not be done in the Constitution. I would not know how to craft such a correction.
A change in how we Elect the President has not been done in the Constitution. I would not support what I think you want.

So, your argument that things should stay as they always were is no longer absolute. That was exactly my point - just because something was done in the past does not mean it can not ever change.

I have no problem with disagreeing on issues, I reject the idea that "things were always done as such" is a valid argument.

 

[MarAzul]

I do not think it matters one bit if a candidate comes to your immediate where-about or not.

Well you do know, they spend a good pile of loot out on the road, hey! It might matter to a few.

 

[dviss1]

If it is so simple, give me that answer - I did not find it in 2 minutes of search. You are either much better than me at search or you did not find it.

FWIW - I did find the following:

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/acs-rural-urban.html

it shows that in urban areas children are 23.5% of the population vs. 22.3% in rural areas - which means that my assumption was right on the money - the voting population in the largest 5 cities is going to be less than 10% of the population pool.



If you are so sure I am wrong - show me that my assumption that less than 10% of the eligible voters live in the 5 biggest cities is wrong. You claim to have the data. Let's see it.



I reject the idea that Oregon is unified in it's needs and that everyone there has the exact same concerns, I also reject that idea that people in Oregon do not have access to media outlets and communication methods and can not be addressed by the candidates via the Internet, TV, Radio etc... - I do not think it matters one bit if a candidate comes to your immediate where-about or not.

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.

 

[andalusian]

Well you do know, they spend a good pile of loot out on the road, hey! It might matter to a few.

Sure. And those people when they vote based on the candidate's willingness to come or not to come to them - will have the same worth as anyone else in the land, and likewise, their neighbor which maybe does not care about it - will have the exact same worth as their is.

All those arguments are find and dandy, but it still comes back to my opinion that everyone's vote should be worth the same, regardless of where they live.

 

[dviss1]

So, your argument that things should stay as they always were is no longer absolute. That was exactly my point - just because something was done in the past does not mean it can not ever change.

I have no problem with disagreeing on issues, I reject the idea that "things were always done as such" is a valid argument.

No. What we need to do is create Election Day as a national holiday.

Barriers to EVERYONE voting need to be torn down.

Republicans need to stop lying about voter fraud and handle the fucking ELECTION FRAUD they committed in NC.

But they don't want anyone to vote that doesn't vote Republican.

 

[MarAzul]

I reject the idea that "things were always done as such" is a valid argument.

AH! Now we can agree.
Doing things by the Constitution makes much more sense, including changing it as needed as need, if possible, before we change how we do things.

 

[andalusian]

Simple math proved you wrong when you exploded our voting populace from 129 million to 325 million.

How? Is the percent of the eligable voters in the 5 biggest cities more than 10% ?

And you keep saying "the assumption".

Stop assuming and do your own math.

I can not do the math without exact data, that's why I made the assumption that the percentage of non-voters in the population of the 5 largest cities in the country is not materially different than the rest of the country. If you have the data that proves me wrong - provide it, or provide a better assumption.

You're the one making the assertion that the EC shouldn't exist.

The burden of proof is on you to show why.

Actually, you are wrong, this is a sub-argument with MarAzul about the 5 largest cities and their weight in the popular vote.

There is no proof that the EC shouldn't exist, it is all opinion. All one can prove is that the value of a vote in some parts of the country is worth more than in others (once again, not what I was arguing with MarAzul about). So, I have nothing to "prove".

MarAzul made the claim that the 5 largest cities in the country will set the popular vote, an argument that is absurd - and very easy research showed that it is less than 10% of the population and (here comes a very reasonable assumption) these cities do not have a huge difference in the amount of voters from the population compared to the rest of the country - thus, the assumption that the 5 largest cities do not decide the popular vote election is very reasonable.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Natebishop3]

Removing the electoral college would basically be like gerrymandering on a national level.

 

[andalusian]

AH! Now we can agree.
Doing things by the Constitution makes much more sense, including changing it as needed as need, if possible, before we change how we do things.

I never called for revolution, nor do I think that it (change from EC to popular vote) will happen anytime soon. I absolutely think it is a bad portion of the constitution - which was built to 18th century reality and it fails miserably in the 21st century.

 

[barfo]

If we rid ourselves of the electoral college how much time do you think politicians would spend campaigning in Oregon?

How much time do they spend here now?

barfo

 

[andalusian]

Removing the electoral college would basically be like gerrymandering on a national level.

Why? Everyone has the exact same value. Nothing can be further from the truth.

If everyone's vote weights the same - a person in Oregon that did not get to shake the candidate's hand can vote against him/her because of that, while his/her neighbor can vote for them because that's not what matters to them.

 

[barfo]

But that's what you're trying to do now. White people are the majority in this country (for now), so should we not engage with the black or latino voter because they're not the majority?

I thought the Liberals were all about diversity, equity, and inclusion? You're not including the rural voters if you do away with the EC.

Bull. Their votes would count the same as urban voters. One per person.

barfo

 

[andalusian]

What we need to do is create Election Day as a national holiday.

No argument from me.

Barriers to EVERYONE voting need to be torn down.

Sure.

But, even in a utopian world where everyone can and does vote, in the current electoral system, a voter in Vermont has a higher value than one in California. That's not right.

 

[barfo]

Removing the electoral college would basically be like gerrymandering on a national level.

That makes no sense at all.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Bull. Their votes would count the same as urban voters. One per person.

barfo

No they wouldn't. Running for office is all about money. Votes in more populated areas would be worth more than votes in rural areas. Investing dollars in a city like Philadelphia or Miami would be a better value than investing in Oklahoma City.

 

[Natebishop3]

That makes no sense at all.

barfo

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?

 

[andalusian]

No they wouldn't. Running for office is all about money. Votes in more populated areas would be worth more than votes in rural areas. Investing dollars in a city like Philadelphia or Miami would be a better value than investing in Oklahoma City.

Each person's vote will have exactly the same weight to anyone elses - how they decide to cast it is up to them.

If a voter in OKC will choose to cast her/his vote based on the amount of dollars a candidate spent near them - so be it, if they choose to cast it based on the candidate's knowledge of the Simpsons, that's fine too - the important thing is that it is going to be exactly the same weight as anyone else in the country.

 

[Natebishop3]

Each person's vote will have exactly the same weight to anyone elses - how they decide to cast it is up to them.

If a voter in OKC will choose to cast her/his vote based on the amount of dollars a candidate spent near them - so be it, if they choose to cast it based on the candidate's knowledge of the Simpsons, that's fine too - the important thing is that it is going to be exactly the same weight as anyone else in the country.

So I'm curious, are you in favor of affirmative action?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

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?

Actually, I think it will cause a bigger wave in conservative votes. People in Blue states who's votes are nullified by the electoral college will be more likely to vote rather than stay home. It will also cause them to vote conservative in local elections as well. Instead of writing off places like California, conservative groups will pour tons of money to get their voices heard in these areas that were once a waste of time to put any effort into.

So yeah, go ahead, abolish the Electoral College.

Like most things with dems, their shortsightedness will fuck them over in the end and we'll all have a good laugh at their expense.

 

[theprunetang]

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?

The EC is essentially the definition of gerrymandering.

 

[Natebishop3]

The EC is essentially the definition of gerrymandering.

The states weren't created a few hundred years ago to fuck over Hillary Clinton. That's asinine.