|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Popular Vote vs Electoral College | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Browsing the posts this morning, I saw somewhere a rabbit trail where someone mentioned Trump lost by 3 million popular votes yet was elected due to the electoral college.
Let's discuss the pros and cons of the current election process and what would or could be a better system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Granted fairness is an issue. Critics say, however, that without the electoral college Democrats would win in perpetuity. And their candidates are not always the best choice.
Edited by Phat, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Perhaps, but often their constituency consists of businessmen and shop owners, which will never be a majority over the public at large.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Wow! Quite an emotional response!!
Taq writes: Voting procedures should never favor only one party. If I am a rancher in Wyoming, for example, why must I bow to the demands of a bunch of elitist whiners in Berkley who think that selling steak is cruel to animals, furs should be banned on women, and I should be taxed higher just so a bunch of homeless people can get free food rather than buying the same food that was earlier protested over? (I'm being facetious and employing hyperbole if only to make a point) It is disturbingly reflected in Phat's own proclamation that we should have voting procedures where only the Republican's preferred candidate wins. AZ Paul sees the wisdom of the electoral college.
Taq writes: I would argue that both political parties think in terms of power. It is rather sad to see a political party that only thinks in terms of power instead of democracy. Exhibit A:
Taq writes:
...instead of democracy. Pledge Of Allegiance writes: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands..., So does the electoral college have anything to do with the old debate regarding whether the US is a Republic or a Democracy? Or both? Or neither? (Ray Dalio implied that it was an "Empire")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
There is that 3rd reason. (Remember our Rancher in Wyoming? How about a small business owner?)
Taq writes: Except that one cannot divide the nation by population centers and then apply the vote equally to the whole nation. All of our votes should count the same for an office that applies equally to the whole nation. Did anyone know that 80% of the population is east of Kansas, 20% is west of Kansas, and of that, 12% is California? Our Rancher is grossly underrepresented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Taq writes: Because population centers by nature have different interests than farms and ranches. voting should not be steamrolled based on emotional ideology. That is unfair. Unless you propose that the government take his ranch and divvy it up to a bunch of homeless people at taxpayer expense. Without his cattle, the price of meat may go up, though. A strong Democracy (or Republic, take your pick) is not run by the CCP nor should it ever be.
Why should your vote count differently based on your position relative to Kansas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Taq writes: I agree. Trump ruined a lot of things. Some argue, however, that he kept us from sliding down the slope closer to China.
We have just witnessed a political party that openly discussed throwing democracy away. The leader of the Republican Party suggested that we throw the constitution out so he could be named president. Nowhere do we see Democrats behaving like this. There is no comparison here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Taq writes: Don't you see how authoritarian that sounds? As for taxes, you will pay what your government, the one you had a voice in electing, tells you to pay. That is your civic obligation to society. You may not see the need for a new stoplight at that intersection but if the government says one is needed then you will pay for it. You had your say when you elected the government. My ranch is every bit as important to me and the welfare of my workers as Democracy is to the homeless folks who need a place to squat. Hypothetically, just because 5 friends always get together and vote and 4 of them vote for the same thing does not mean that the fifth guy always has to turn the other cheek.
I don't see where any of your anti-government, anti-people, bullshit is related to the subject you started. I think it has more to do with congressional districts and the House of Representatives than it does to the electoral college. Right now, anyway.
WTF does this have to do with the electoral college?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
AZ writes: And I'm just getting warmed up! What kind of conspiratorial sicko makes up this shit? Back to our old friend, Gold. That useless rock. Never mind that FDR took our gold. Gerald Ford gave it back. Nixon defended the dollar against "the speculators". The US Dollar in essence became fools gold. Except that it can be inflated. Deflated. Created out of nothing. And the naive among us think that this sort of behavior is the new monetary theory! Ask Percy what the official value of the Gold held by the Federal Reserve (or Fort Knox, I forget) is valued at.(Hint: Close to $35.00 an ounce!!!) I found out a fact at the Union meeting last night. The speaker stated that Walmart does not even pay for the items they have in their stores, but only makes money once the items are sold. I will have to fact-check that, but I trust the speaker. (and where does Walmart get most of its stuff? *cough* China! *cough* So add up these stats. China buys tons of T-Bills and essentially loans us money by buying our debt. They do this because they know that we are their biggest consumer. Even if they *knew* that the dollar was close to being worth 5 cents for every dollar FDR had. Let's do the math.2022 dollar = roughly 5 cents of the 1933 dollar. Thus, 1933 dollar=20x. 1933 Gold ounce=$35.00 (x 20) = $700.00 an ounce. Does anyone see the light yet? Add to that the fact that China and Russia are buying tons and tons of gold to back their central banks. Conservatives may be selfish heartless bastards, but they know the value of a dollar.Liberals seem to think that humans determine the value of the dollar and that if only we squeezed our eyes shut real tight and wished upon a star, there would be enough money for everybody! Until that trust is violated. It has happened before. It will happen again. And did anybody hear the rumors that future agreements between the Saudis, Russia and China will no longer price oil and natural gas in dollars? The commodities (like that gold rock) are solid and will be priced in Rubles, Renubi, and other alternate currencies soon to be fully backed by gold. Nixon never intended for the dollar to remain separated from gold, (I don't think). It's just that the Democrats got ahold of it and wanted it to be perpetually hypothetical. The Republicans think in concrete absolute value terms. The Dems think in hypothetical "print what you need to feed" terms. Edited by Phat, : added spelling corrections
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Taq writes:
According to Alexa, the CCP has 96 million members. How is it fair that a billion point four Chinese bow down to 96 million CCP members?
So millions of people in cities should bow down to the wishes of a few thousand farmers? How is that fair?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Daisy Spot Commercial
Wow. People don't fear nuclear war or nuclear weapons like they used to. And it was fear that helped preserve the peace. Nowadays, nobody is scared of anybody else. Which is fine as long as the henhouse has no disguised wolves in its midst.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Dr.Jones* writes: No one? No one is advocating for a one party state.All I can do is judge them by what they say. (just as they do me)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
xongsmith writes: OK that explains my rancher. But what do we expect him to do? He best not bet the ranch! Gambling is for suckers. Should we expect him to grovel at the feet of the majority? He is doing us a favor by raising livestock. Or would you prefer the state do that? Originally, to vote you had to be a male white owner of LAND. these fly-over states are sort of the last bastions of LAND power left. *Phat drags out Mr.Dictionary, another dusty old book*
Oxford Languages writes: I always assumed that populists were uneducated blue collar workers, many of whom owned a small business. Trump called them something to the effect of "his forgotten people" who he promised would never be forgotten again. a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."the question is whether he will tone down his fiery populism now that he has joined the political establishment" support for populist politicians or policies. "the government came to power on a wave of populism" the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people. "art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism" IIRC, he appealed to them for some unknown reason...perhaps because he was a walking advertisement against "elitism". So now my next task in today's lesson is to look up elitism. But first... Populism In The United States Wikipedia:Im starting to understand. My conservative friend, (he loves Ben Shapiro) claims that "we" (see? He uses that word too! )need to kick the elitists out of political office. Now...
What Are Elitists Elitism quote:Comments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Taq writes: When the presidential debates are broadcast, they can swing an election due to the large audience they reach.
How many voters can a candidate speak to at any one go?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I would be more scared of a one-party government. The dear leader could be elected for life! And your assumption that 74 million are idiots also indirectly assumes that One Party possesses all of the intelligence and rationality of the people at large. I'm here to challenge that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024