A close election with recounts would be a disaster. Four counties in Florida was bad enough.baccaruda wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 8:25 amWow. Great argument. So far, that's the best argument yet in favor of an electoral college.
So far we have:
* "Because more people can outvote fewer people and that's not fair."
* "States with a lot of empty land should get more say."
* "Because mob rule."
* "Because that's the way it's always been."
* "Because other countries don't have popular vote."
Gaming the Electoral College
Moderator: clw54
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
--Smoetimes Clw's genius is just scary. -- Catch22
I hate the government -- Barndog
everyone wants to pontificate but nobody wants to wipe ass with one square -- Cullen
I hate the government -- Barndog
everyone wants to pontificate but nobody wants to wipe ass with one square -- Cullen
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
What ever happened to "majority rules"
We Are Stardust
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
I don't think so, you can win the popular vote and still lose the election.
We Are Stardust
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
And still, no valid arguments...WhyNot wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 9:59 amWhen you ever get around to it take a few college courses when you have the time.baccaruda wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 8:25 amWow. Great argument. So far, that's the best argument yet in favor of an electoral college.
So far we have:
* "Because more people can outvote fewer people and that's not fair."
* "States with a lot of empty land should get more say."
* "Because mob rule."
* "Because that's the way it's always been."
* "Because other countries don't have popular vote."
First take a course on how to debate and have a slight chance of expressing your point.
Second …… reading comprehension 101
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
Nothing about the process would change though - other than there would be no "electors" in each state. There'd still be votes, collected locally and tabulated. It's just that if there are 3m votes for candidate A and 4m for candidate B in a particluar state, each candidate would get that number of votes - every vote would not go to one candidate.clw54 wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 10:18 amA close election with recounts would be a disaster. Four counties in Florida was bad enough.baccaruda wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 8:25 amWow. Great argument. So far, that's the best argument yet in favor of an electoral college.
So far we have:
* "Because more people can outvote fewer people and that's not fair."
* "States with a lot of empty land should get more say."
* "Because mob rule."
* "Because that's the way it's always been."
* "Because other countries don't have popular vote."
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
But that's good - at least it was an attempt at an answer rather than personal attacks and specious reasoning.
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
According to History.com it's happened 5 times. https://www.history.com/news/presidents ... pular-vote
We Are Stardust
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
So, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."WhyNot wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 9:59 am So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”
If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
If the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?baccaruda wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:49 pmSo, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."WhyNot wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 9:59 am So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”
If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?
Sheep are fed information, wolves hunt for it.
"I apologize for replacing superstition with science. If it is any solace, the West has abandoned this and gone back to blaming the weather on the acts of man." - Don Surber
"I apologize for replacing superstition with science. If it is any solace, the West has abandoned this and gone back to blaming the weather on the acts of man." - Don Surber
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
So these 10 families are more important than 10 other families? Tell me why that is.walmann wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 2:43 pmIf the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?baccaruda wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:49 pmSo, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."WhyNot wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 9:59 am So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”
If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
They do have an influence, one person one vote. It's as simple as that. No votes should count more than other votes.walmann wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 2:43 pmIf the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?baccaruda wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:49 pmSo, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."WhyNot wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 9:59 am So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”
If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?
We Are Stardust
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
- Rollo Tomassi
- Associate Smoe old dude's fried ball sundae
- Posts: 89851
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:00 pm
- Location: 69 Breaking Wind Wy. Represa, CA
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
Blacks should get 10 votes apeese.
"Racist" is a toolword. You must know that.
Any objective examination of the effect of "them" has to lead you to the behavior and ideology that is now termed, "racist."
Refute if you can.
Any objective examination of the effect of "them" has to lead you to the behavior and ideology that is now termed, "racist."
Refute if you can.
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
Plus a million dollars
We Are Stardust
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight". Albert Schweitzer
"I fear that if my hope trumps my reason I will be entombed in false beliefs"
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
baccaruda wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 3:28 pmSo these 10 families are more important than 10 other families? Tell me why that is.walmann wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 2:43 pmIf the 10-family state has no viable voting influence on the political system and the system is net drain on their state/families, why would they want to stay part of such system?baccaruda wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:49 pmSo, paraphrasing - "The rich and productive minority should get more say in government because otherwise poor people will outvote them."WhyNot wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 9:59 am So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”
If that's not what this means then yes, my reading comprehension skills are poor - at least with this nonsense. Will someone with reading comprehension skills interpret this for me?
You didn't answer my question, why is that? Why would they want you stay? Could the answer be part of why some people leave blue states for red states,? What could thr response be on a national level when large regions or significant numbers of individuals feel disenfranchised?
Sheep are fed information, wolves hunt for it.
"I apologize for replacing superstition with science. If it is any solace, the West has abandoned this and gone back to blaming the weather on the acts of man." - Don Surber
"I apologize for replacing superstition with science. If it is any solace, the West has abandoned this and gone back to blaming the weather on the acts of man." - Don Surber
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
This question gets to the heart of the matter. The USA likely would not exist today if this electoral balancing act was not incorporated into the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution can be amended. But those who insisted on this equalization of elective influence kept that same influence within the process of amending by requiring 75% of states to approve.
The Electoral College will live on as long as the US exists. Cry all you want.
It's a great debate, but nearly the same one that took place in 1787. Without this compromise you might very well be Canadian or Mexican.
I speak for everyone. I am omnipotent
Suches Life
Suches Life
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
You are exactly correct. I'm glad someone here actually took an American history course in high school.FatMan wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 6:27 amThis question gets to the heart of the matter. The USA likely would not exist today if this electoral balancing act was not incorporated into the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution can be amended. But those who insisted on this equalization of elective influence kept that same influence within the process of amending by requiring 75% of states to approve.
The Electoral College will live on as long as the US exists. Cry all you want.
It's a great debate, but nearly the same one that took place in 1787. Without this compromise you might very well be Canadian or Mexican.
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
Require the ownership of one arce or more of land AND payment of taxes for an individual to vote. Stop letting anyone with a half-baked idea vote. If you own nothing, and owe nothing you will vote for the type of people who are in office at this moment. This goes for with or without an electoral college and can be passed by legislation.
Re: Gaming the Electoral College
Lincoln did not win the popular vote either in 1860. So, in a democracy shouldn't it be only a person receiving more than 50% of the eligible votes be elected? Why make exceptions for votes actually casted, or in cases of multiple candidates a plurality? Should all elections be limited to two candidates only to avoid various scenarios? Which then begs the question is limiting elections to two candidates really democratic? Why in the case of plurality are some votes more important even when they are not a majority?mdwoods wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:39 pm
According to History.com it's happened 5 times. https://www.history.com/news/presidents ... pular-vote
Sheep are fed information, wolves hunt for it.
"I apologize for replacing superstition with science. If it is any solace, the West has abandoned this and gone back to blaming the weather on the acts of man." - Don Surber
"I apologize for replacing superstition with science. If it is any solace, the West has abandoned this and gone back to blaming the weather on the acts of man." - Don Surber