Gaming the Electoral College

[WhyNot]

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

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”

Smart 'vegetarians" are running from the commercial farmers that are dousing their crops with Round-Up. To be honest, they should be in prison for poisoning the food supply and thus as felons...have no vote.

If those commercial farmers went away the cost of goods from the organic mom and pop farms would go up thousands of percent. And you know that.

Way less cancer and Medicare costs would drop by a third. I am good with that.

And where may I ask did you get this 1/3 cancer cause due to farmers spraying their fields ? Is it a real number or just one plucked from....wherever ?

[WhyNot]

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

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 I'm reading this right, you're saying that the number of votes you get should be based on your wealth or income? You're going down a whole different road here.

No
I have no clue how but you got that completely wrong as in 100 % missed the boat.
Where is that flying over your head meme ??????

I guess you need to rephrase then. Tell me again why 10 people should have more voting power than 50,000? Maybe I misread, but it sure looked like you said the 10 people were more productive than the 50,000. Farmland doesn't have voting rights. People do.

Hey, I don't necessarily disagree. I've said in the past that I think a person should have to be a net-taxpayer in order to vote. But just come right out and say that.

So basically you can't comprehend the valid arguments why the electoral college was implemented. I understand you disagree with them, but your comments imply to me that you don't even understand, disagreements aside, why it exists or was implemented. Impossible to discuss something like this with someone who doesn't even understand why it exists.

[walmann]

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

A Nation is as arbitrary as a "state". Groups of people in these arbitrarily drawn lines, not obviously shared by each and every individual, will have common interests that are dissimilar and at times completely contradictory to groups of people in other arbitrarily "drawn" areas. Urban areas with their concentrated populations can easily impose their will on the rural populations (at their expense and counter interest) to caterer to needs and wants. This is not just an issue with only democracies but most national systems. The individual of course is easily subverted. History is full of examples of nations breaking up due to dissimilar needs and interests for "arbitrary" geographical sections rebelling.

The concept of states' rights limited central (national) authority, and a two-chamber legislature (with one chamber giving equal weight to each "arbitrary" state) greatly reduces the ability of both mob rule and one all-powerful central government. The arbitrary state lines and their ability for self-governing on most issues, this permits individuals to choose where to live based on similar views on those issues and their practical implications on daily life.

Sadly, the notion of limited central government has been erased, heck for many minds in this country it probably has never been given a thought.
Why stop at the one vote one person? Get rid of the Senate. Get rid of the arbitrary state borders. Should there even be counties, cities and towns? Why not just the Federal government and Federal government alone? Hell, there is the UN why not just....

[mdwoods]

Or…do you want a plebiscite/referendum on every law Nationally? That would be true “democracy”. Mob rule…

Where did he say that he wanted a referendum on each individual issue? He's talking about weighing votes for the President exactly the same for each citizen. It has absolutely ZERO to do with "mob rule."

Mac is always trying to put words in my mouth. I used to like him in spite of his faults but now he tells outright lies about what I've said so I don't care for him much anymore.

[mdwoods]

The electoral college should be eliminated. States already have 2 senators per state regardless of population so that issue is taken care of.

[WhyNot]

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”

Smart 'vegetarians" are running from the commercial farmers that are dousing their crops with Round-Up. To be honest, they should be in prison for poisoning the food supply and thus as felons...have no vote.

If those commercial farmers went away the cost of goods from the organic mom and pop farms would go up thousands of percent. And you know that.

Way less cancer and Medicare costs would drop by a third. I am good with that.

And where may I ask did you get this 1/3 cancer cause due to farmers spraying their fields ? Is it a real number or just one plucked from....wherever ?

Hey FatMan. I am too much of a spineless here kitty kitty to answer your simple yes/no question.

Yeah, pretty much what I thought.

Yup

[MacGyver]

Or…do you want a plebiscite/referendum on every law Nationally? That would be true “democracy”. Mob rule…

Where did he say that he wanted a referendum on each individual issue? He's talking about weighing votes for the President exactly the same for each citizen. It has absolutely ZERO to do with "mob rule."

Mac is always trying to put words in my mouth. I used to like him in spite of his faults but now he tells outright lies about what I've said so I don't care for him much anymore.

I asked a question…how is that putting words in your mouth. How is that lying?

[mdwoods]

Or…do you want a plebiscite/referendum on every law Nationally? That would be true “democracy”. Mob rule…

Where did he say that he wanted a referendum on each individual issue? He's talking about weighing votes for the President exactly the same for each citizen. It has absolutely ZERO to do with "mob rule."

Mac is always trying to put words in my mouth. I used to like him in spite of his faults but now he tells outright lies about what I've said so I don't care for him much anymore.

I asked a question…how is that putting words in your mouth. How is that lying?

The questions you ask are uncalled for. I could easily ask you yeah but is the sky green? That makes no sense and neither do your questions most of the time. You've lied more than once about things I've supposedly said but didn't say. I'm not going to go back through and search for examples, I'm satisfied that what I said is correct.

[MacGyver]

Or…do you want a plebiscite/referendum on every law Nationally? That would be true “democracy”. Mob rule…

Where did he say that he wanted a referendum on each individual issue? He's talking about weighing votes for the President exactly the same for each citizen. It has absolutely ZERO to do with "mob rule."

Mac is always trying to put words in my mouth. I used to like him in spite of his faults but now he tells outright lies about what I've said so I don't care for him much anymore.

I asked a question…how is that putting words in your mouth. How is that lying?

The questions you ask are uncalled for. I could easily ask you yeah but is the sky green? That makes no sense and neither do your questions most of the time. You've lied more than once about things I've supposedly said but didn't say. I'm not going to go back through and search for examples, I'm satisfied that what I said is correct.

Are you on your period?

Oops, there I go again lying and putting words in your mouth.

[baccaruda]

Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote. Explain to me why this is a good system. One valid argument. Just one. I still can't figure out why anyone would bother voting - but that's probably their plan in the first place. Indiana is going to vote for Trump, Illinois is going to vote for Biden. Just stay home, your vote makes no difference - with the electoral college in place anyway.

And stop with the "100,000 concentrated urban center voters will outvote 10,000 rural voters - and that's not fair." Read that sentence again and apply a modicum of logic. It's not fair that 100,000 voters can outvote 10,000? How EXACTLY is that not fair? Because the rural voters should have more power because they're rural?

Each person gets a vote. Vacant land does not get to vote. Well, except in America - vacant land gets to vote. I love it when supporters of the electoral college show the map of America and say "these 3 tiny highly populated areas have more voting power than this gigantic uninhabited land mass! Unfair! Mob rule!" The electoral college has exactly ZERO to do with "mob rule."

[mdwoods]

Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote. Explain to me why this is a good system. One valid argument. Just one. I still can't figure out why anyone would bother voting - but that's probably their plan in the first place. Indiana is going to vote for Trump, Illinois is going to vote for Biden. Just stay home, your vote makes no difference - with the electoral college in place anyway.

And stop with the "100,000 concentrated urban center voters will outvote 10,000 rural voters - and that's not fair." Read that sentence again and apply a modicum of logic. It's not fair that 100,000 voters can outvote 10,000? How EXACTLY is that not fair? Because the rural voters should have more power because they're rural?

Each person gets a vote. Vacant land does not get to vote. Well, except in America - vacant land gets to vote. I love it when supporters of the electoral college show the map of America and say "these 3 tiny highly populated areas have more voting power than this gigantic uninhabited land mass! Unfair! Mob rule!" The electoral college has exactly ZERO to do with "mob rule."

Well said, you explain it much better than I can

[cullenbryant]

What countries use a strictly popular vote system for president

[MacGyver]

Why does each state only get 2 Senators? Shouldn’t California get more than Montana?

You already have “representation by population” in the house, states are treated equally in the Senate and also the Presidency with the electoral college system(with more votes for more populated states)

It is a much better system than we have in Canada. The western provinces get fuddernutter, while we have all the resources that feed and heat the rest of the Country.

Our senate is useless, as they are appointed, and are there for life.

Be careful what you wish for. There’s a reason why the founders designed a system that has last as long as it has.

[MacGyver]

What countries use a strictly popular vote system for president

Don’t be asking questions…Woodie will claim you are putting words in his mouth. LOL

[mdwoods]

What countries use a strictly popular vote system for president

Don’t be asking questions…Woodie will claim you are putting words in his mouth. LOL

It's only when you ask silly unrelated to the topic questions that I react. The way you phrase the questions is the problem. Why don't you answer Cullen? Not that his question makes any sense. If doesn't matter what other countries do, it matters what we do here.

[PerryHall]

What countries use a strictly popular vote system for president

North Korea, Cuba, China, Russia

[WhyNot]

Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote. Explain to me why this is a good system. One valid argument. Just one.

Because he lost.
You know it probably would be better if you just didn’t vote.
Just sayin

[baccaruda]

Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote. Explain to me why this is a good system. One valid argument. Just one.

Because he lost.

Wow. 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."

[walmann]

What is referred to as vacant land feeds, provides energy and a host of resources that keep urban areas possible. It is not desirable to have the people living and working those areas to view the lines of a state or nations as not having a somewhat equitable trade off. The less impact those vacant land people have politically, usually results in more negatives for the vacant landers, making union less beneficial and desirable. For those vacant landers it is not desirable to have no influence on the executive branch.

As much as the last two centuries have seen the growth of nation states, the last few decades have seen the breakup of a number of nations.

It was felt at the time that democracy could only work in small countries due to the greatly competing interests of various populations. It was known that a vote is not a voice if one's vote will never have impact on election results, meaning no true representation. To exclude the impact of vacant landers on the executive branch would promote their disenfranchisement and not be a positive as "vacant landers" would view themselves less a part of the nation.

[WhyNot]

Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote. Explain to me why this is a good system. One valid argument. Just one.

Because he lost.

Wow. 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."

When you ever get around to it take a few college courses when you have the time.
First take a course on how to debate and have a slight chance of expressing your point.
Second …… reading comprehension 101