Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-15-2020, 06:29 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You're the one telling us that we have to appease the Bernie Bros.

The Millennials represent a minority of the Democratic party (and they will ALWAYS be a minority of the party). Yes we need them but we need the Boomers and Gen X just as much. We cannot let Millennials hold democracy hostage and coerce the rest of the party into pursuing a radical agenda. We don't need them any more than they need us and if they want to play chicken with this election to coerce the party with a tyranny of the minority, then screw them.

I don't care if Biden picks Bloomberg as his VP candidate, either you want Trump out of office or there is wiggle room on that for you.
I think Bloomberg as VP would lose the election (also not a chance -- way too old and adds nothing to the ticket). So I'd prefer a VP that helps win the election, not settles some score or notion of "deserve". I think there are VPs that would help win and ones that wouldn't, and I'd prefer one that helps. YMMV.
  #102  
Old 03-15-2020, 07:04 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I have always blamed Hillary for her loss. But people always seem to try and make some excuse for her loss from sexism to the electoral college.
Yes, electoral college. The orange terror said the system was rigged and he was right. 45% of Americans control a majority of electoral votes. A candidate could take 23% of the popular vote and win the White House. Convince me that's good or even workable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The DNC conspired and schemed to help Hillary and hurt Bernie.
Bernie was not a Dem in 2016, never had been. He was a hostile intruder. Hillary had worked the party for decades. Is it cheating to evict a squatter from your home?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
She had a 3 million popular vote majority. 5 million of that came California.
So Californians aren't Americans? I guess we can stop paying federal taxes, then.

There's about 700k Californians per EV and under 195k Wyoming residents per EV. The population of California, with 55 EVs, is slightly more than the 21 smallest states (and DC) combined, with 101 EVs. Thus each small-state voter is worth two Californians. Even with rampant voter suppression and disenfranchisement elsewhere, California gets the shitty end of the EV stick.

Quote:
If Trump had focused on winning the popular vote rather than the actual election, who knows what the popular vote would have been. That is why the popular vote count is relatively meaningless.
EVERY election in the US except some state referendum issues and the presidency are decided by simple majority votes. But the people are meaningless nationally so fuck "consent of the governed", right? Just admit that "We, the People" don't exist. We're all animals to be herded by our betters, who anywhere else are losers. Sad.

Biden can win a supermajority and lose. Even sadder for America, but Putin laughs.
  #103  
Old 03-15-2020, 07:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
She had a 3 million popular vote majority. 5 million of that came California.
This is such a bullshit point. Millions of Trump's votes came from the states he won, including big states like Texas, OH, and FL. So what? Why is this notable in any way whatsoever?
  #104  
Old 03-15-2020, 10:44 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is such a bullshit point. Millions of Trump's votes came from the states he won, including big states like Texas, OH, and FL. So what? Why is this notable in any way whatsoever?
Because it shows the popular vote is meaningless in an election that run off an electoral system.

Ohio and Florida votes actually matter because those states are sometimes in play. Racking up huge margins in California is about the stupidest electoral strategy a Democrat can pursue and yet, that's what we ended up with. And popular vote margin of 3 million 5 million of which came from one state. 5 million vote margin in California. The largest margin ever achieved in any election in and state in all of world history. And it meant nothing.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 03-15-2020 at 10:45 PM.
  #105  
Old 03-16-2020, 03:02 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Because it shows the popular vote is meaningless in an election that run off an electoral system.
If votes are meaningless then we should meekly submit to our masters. They'll select for us the bestest leaders in history, you-betcha! So what if major disenfranchisement and suppression are needed? It's for our own good, like being spayed.

Convince me that a candidate taking an EV win with 23% of the popular vote is good. Try.
  #106  
Old 03-16-2020, 04:51 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Because it shows the popular vote is meaningless in an election that run off an electoral system.

Ohio and Florida votes actually matter because those states are sometimes in play. Racking up huge margins in California is about the stupidest electoral strategy a Democrat can pursue and yet, that's what we ended up with. And popular vote margin of 3 million 5 million of which came from one state. 5 million vote margin in California. The largest margin ever achieved in any election in and state in all of world history. And it meant nothing.
So this is just another pointless shot at an irrelevant Democratic politician? Yes, her strategy was flawed. Your obsession with her is just disturbing. She doesn't matter any more.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #107  
Old 03-16-2020, 10:47 PM
Nonsuch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 5,900
Washington was officially called for Biden, if anyone still cares.
  #108  
Old 03-21-2020, 09:35 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
If votes are meaningless then we should meekly submit to our masters. They'll select for us the bestest leaders in history, you-betcha! So what if major disenfranchisement and suppression are needed? It's for our own good, like being spayed.

Convince me that a candidate taking an EV win with 23% of the popular vote is good. Try.
It's worse than that, Trump won with about 100,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

It seems like you are basically asking for a defense of the electoral college.

1. It requires the winning candidate to win in states covering a broad geographic constituency.

2. It was the compromise necessary to get the states to agree to the union and you can change the agreement but you need their approval to do so. We have an amendment process for that. We don't change it because people in one party no longer likes it.

3. Do you really think it is a healthy democracy where you could become president by appealing only to urban voters and ignoring rural voters? Where you could appeal to the coastal states and ignore the inland states? Where you could pander to white people and ignore the concerns of minorities?
  #109  
Old 03-21-2020, 09:38 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So this is just another pointless shot at an irrelevant Democratic politician? Yes, her strategy was flawed. Your obsession with her is just disturbing. She doesn't matter any more.
Yes and if her strategy had not been flawed, people wouldn't be so butthurt about the electoral college.

This is people trying to change the rules to prove that things were unfair to them the last time around.
  #110  
Old 03-21-2020, 10:18 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Yes and if her strategy had not been flawed, people wouldn't be so butthurt about the electoral college.



This is people trying to change the rules to prove that things were unfair to them the last time around.
We've been criticizing the EC for 2 decades or more. It's a shitty system that should be done away with.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-21-2020 at 10:18 PM.
  #111  
Old 03-22-2020, 10:09 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think Bloomberg as VP would lose the election (also not a chance -- way too old and adds nothing to the ticket). So I'd prefer a VP that helps win the election, not settles some score or notion of "deserve". I think there are VPs that would help win and ones that wouldn't, and I'd prefer one that helps. YMMV.
I was using bloomberg as an example to make a point (I can't believe that this has to be explained). Either you want trump out or there is some wiggle room on that for you.

It seems like a lot of Bernie supporters want to hold the Democrats hostage for their vote. We shouldn't negotiate with hostage takers.
  #112  
Old 03-22-2020, 10:13 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We've been criticizing the EC for 2 decades or more. It's a shitty system that should be done away with.
Good luck getting that amendment ratified.

Why is it a shitty system? Because your candidate didn't win?
The opposition to the electoral college isn't principled, it is partisan.
  #113  
Old 03-22-2020, 10:37 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Good luck getting that amendment ratified.

Why is it a shitty system? Because your candidate didn't win?
The opposition to the electoral college isn't principled, it is partisan.
Well. If Kerry would have won the EC and lost the popular vote, things might be different.

The problem is that the House of Representatives hasnít kept up, giving small states even more power. Expanding the size of the House can be done far easier than eliminating the EC.

The British House of Commons has 650 members, thatís more than the USA House and Senate.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #114  
Old 03-23-2020, 12:47 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Good luck getting that amendment ratified.



Why is it a shitty system? Because your candidate didn't win?

The opposition to the electoral college isn't principled, it is partisan.
It's an obvious argument, and very simple - because it's a bullshit system. Voters in certain states shouldn't have more power than voters in others, just because of where they live. Right now, voters in California and Texas don't matter at all for presidential campaigns. That's bullshit.

In a popular vote system, every single voter would have exactly the same influence. A voter in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Dallas, would have exactly the same influence, no more and no less, than a voter in a small town in Ohio, Iowa, Florida, or North Carolina. Every single American would matter exactly the same amount. California would get a lot of attention, sure. It's a huge state - it should get a lot of attention. So should Texas. So should New York. Big cities should get lots of attention. Right now they mostly get none. That's bullshit and very obviously unfair.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #115  
Old 03-23-2020, 01:05 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
Also, on the EC, "it's a partisan argument" is a nothing criticism. Obviously the party that is hurt by the system is less likely to oppose it. That doesn't make it any less unfair of a system. Any system that gives some individual voters much more influence than others is a bullshit, unfair system.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #116  
Old 03-23-2020, 01:41 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Nobody has yet tried to convince me that a candidate taking 23% of popular votes to win the White House is a tolerable situation. C'mon, somebody - make the case!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It's worse than that, Trump won with about 100,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
About 78k votes in 3 counties took the EC. Groovy.

Quote:
It seems like you are basically asking for a defense of the electoral college.

1. It requires the winning candidate to win in states covering a broad geographic constituency.
Candidates for Governor of Arizona (or Alaska or Alabama or whatever) appeal to voters all over the state. Whoever gains the most votes, wins. It's called "democracy."

Quote:
2. It was the compromise necessary to get the states to agree to the union and you can change the agreement but you need their approval to do so. We have an amendment process for that. We don't change it because people in one party no longer likes it.
Sorry, I'm not about to argue the outmoded historical basis here. That's for elsewhere.

Quote:
3. Do you really think it is a healthy democracy where you could become president by appealing only to urban voters and ignoring rural voters? Where you could appeal to the coastal states and ignore the inland states? Where you could pander to white people and ignore the concerns of minorities?
Losers get fewer votes than winners. Installing losers hasn't worked out well. Tell you what - let's you and I run for mayor of Smallville. You get 51 votes. I get 41 votes. I win!! Why? Because healthy democracy, no tyranny of the majority, tradition, and a rigged setup. Half of your votes came from the bad side of town so they're discounted 35%. Don't cry - that's the system! Your strategy was insufficient. So sad.
  #117  
Old 03-23-2020, 08:33 AM
Bill Door is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Good luck getting that amendment ratified.

Why is it a shitty system? Because your candidate didn't win?
The opposition to the electoral college isn't principled, it is partisan.
It's a shitty system because if your state is run so poorly that no one wants to live there giving that state additional electoral votes is a stupid thing to do. Low population states are low population states for a reason. Giving them more juice in the Senate and in Presidential elections doesn't make any sense.
  #118  
Old 03-23-2020, 09:06 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
It's a shitty system because if your state is run so poorly that no one wants to live there giving that state additional electoral votes is a stupid thing to do. Low population states are low population states for a reason. Giving them more juice in the Senate and in Presidential elections doesn't make any sense.
There are direct democracy arguments to make but this is asinine. You are really going to say Montana is a low population state because it's so poorly run? Or Maine? "They're low population because they suck!" is a bullshit thing to say.

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-23-2020 at 09:08 AM.
  #119  
Old 04-04-2020, 09:58 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think Bloomberg as VP would lose the election (also not a chance -- way too old and adds nothing to the ticket). So I'd prefer a VP that helps win the election, not settles some score or notion of "deserve". I think there are VPs that would help win and ones that wouldn't, and I'd prefer one that helps. YMMV.
You still think Bloomberg would cause a loss? I think he could pick iiandyiiii and still run away with it at this point.
  #120  
Old 04-04-2020, 10:01 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We've been criticizing the EC for 2 decades or more. It's a shitty system that should be done away with.
Really? Because it seems to me that noone thought it was bad until they lost the electoral college while winning the popular vote. Bush/Gore comes to mind.

And frankly at the time it seemed like Gore would have won both if the Republican Florida Secretary hadn't stopped the music as soon as there was a count that put Bush ahead.
  #121  
Old 04-04-2020, 10:05 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Well. If Kerry would have won the EC and lost the popular vote, things might be different.

The problem is that the House of Representatives hasnít kept up, giving small states even more power. Expanding the size of the House can be done far easier than eliminating the EC.

The British House of Commons has 650 members, thatís more than the USA House and Senate.
I can agree with that. we could bump out the back of the capital building and triple the number of representatives. I think there were something like 200K people per representative when they settled on the number 435. Our population is more than triple what is was back then.
  #122  
Old 04-04-2020, 10:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Really? Because it seems to me that noone thought it was bad until they lost the electoral college while winning the popular vote. Bush/Gore comes to mind.

And frankly at the time it seemed like Gore would have won both if the Republican Florida Secretary hadn't stopped the music as soon as there was a count that put Bush ahead.
You thought wrong. Criticism of the EC has been around forever, and rightly so -- everyone's vote should have the exact same influence. As it is, voters in some states -- most notably really big states like CA, NY, and TX, but also many others -- have zero influence into who's president. They don't matter. With a popular vote election, every voter, no matter whether they're from IA, NH, AK, CA, NY, or any other state, would have the exact same power and influence with their vote for president.
  #123  
Old 04-04-2020, 10:17 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's an obvious argument, and very simple - because it's a bullshit system. Voters in certain states shouldn't have more power than voters in others, just because of where they live. Right now, voters in California and Texas don't matter at all for presidential campaigns. That's bullshit.
There has been this exact same dynamic since the very first election was held in this country. If you want to change it, then just get a constitutional amendment. I'm sure your argument of "It's bullshit" will carry the day.

And California and Texas votes matter. In fact with the highest and second highest number of electoral votes their votes matter quite a bit.

Quote:
In a popular vote system, every single voter would have exactly the same influence. A voter in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Dallas, would have exactly the same influence, no more and no less, than a voter in a small town in Ohio, Iowa, Florida, or North Carolina. Every single American would matter exactly the same amount. California would get a lot of attention, sure. It's a huge state - it should get a lot of attention. So should Texas. So should New York. Big cities should get lots of attention. Right now they mostly get none. That's bullshit and very obviously unfair.
Every vote does not have to have the same influence in the outcome of an election. You're just bellyaching because it worked against your partisan interests this time around. If it had gone the other way, I doubt that there would be very much distaste for the electoral college from the left and a lot of outrage from the right. It's not the system that is bullshit. It's the partisan outrage that is bullshit.

California still gets a ton of attention Democratic candidates during the primaries. And frankly Hillary spent too much time there during the general election.

With a popular vote, noone would campaign in sparse rural areas. Our national policy would be focused on cities and cities alone. Noone would chase the rural vote because it wold be too much work for too little benefit.
  #124  
Old 04-04-2020, 10:18 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
There are direct democracy arguments to make but this is asinine. You are really going to say Montana is a low population state because it's so poorly run? Or Maine? "They're low population because they suck!" is a bullshit thing to say.
So why is Montana a low population state? Or Maine?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 04-04-2020 at 10:19 AM.
  #125  
Old 04-04-2020, 10:31 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
So why is Montana a low population state? Or Maine?
Probably a bunch of reasons. But the issue is whether the high population states are well run and the small population poorly run, which explains their population differences. Do you believe that?
  #126  
Old 04-04-2020, 11:05 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
With a popular vote, noone would campaign in sparse rural areas. Our national policy would be focused on cities and cities alone. Noone would chase the rural vote because it wold be too much work for too little benefit.
Right now no one campaigns in big cities, unless they happen to be in swing states (and most big cities aren't). And no one campaigns in rural areas in non-swing states. Explain to me why it's better that rural OH should get more presidential general election campaign attention than NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston combined.
  #127  
Old 04-04-2020, 11:09 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
That's the only argument I ever see -- "but what about the rural areas?"

It's nuts. Most rural areas get no attention anyway -- only a few that happen to be in lucky swing states do now. So they, and a few lucky swing state cities, get all the attention, and the BIGGEST CITIES IN THE COUNTRY get none. There's no reasonable argument that this is better than voters in rural areas counting EXACTLY THE SAME as voters in cities. Geographic areas shouldn't have influence -- only the American people, each exactly the same, should have voting influence, regardless of where they live.
  #128  
Old 04-04-2020, 11:56 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
It's a shitty system because if your state is run so poorly that no one wants to live there giving that state additional electoral votes is a stupid thing to do. Low population states are low population states for a reason. Giving them more juice in the Senate and in Presidential elections doesn't make any sense.
OK. Then convince 2/3rds of the house and the senate and 3/4ths of the states and you have your constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, you live with the rules that were agreed to by everyone when the country was formed. The same constitution that was agreed to by every state that entered the union.
  #129  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:00 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You thought wrong. Criticism of the EC has been around forever, and rightly so -- everyone's vote should have the exact same influence. As it is, voters in some states -- most notably really big states like CA, NY, and TX, but also many others -- have zero influence into who's president. They don't matter. With a popular vote election, every voter, no matter whether they're from IA, NH, AK, CA, NY, or any other state, would have the exact same power and influence with their vote for president.
No, criticism at this level is relatively new. I'm sure there was a popular vote movement was around since the constitution was first ratified but it didn't really pick up steam until Bush v Gore and people didn't get their panties in a twist until Trump v Clinton.
  #130  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:04 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Right now no one campaigns in big cities, unless they happen to be in swing states (and most big cities aren't). And no one campaigns in rural areas in non-swing states. Explain to me why it's better that rural OH should get more presidential general election campaign attention than NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston combined.
Really? Because Hillary Clinton spent a lot of time in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Hell, 170% of her 3 million popular vote advantage came from that state.

Meanwhile Trump was chasing a few thousand votes in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Turns out Trump's strategy of trying to win electoral votes was a better one than a strategy of trying to win the popular vote. So fucking unfair.
  #131  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:07 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Probably a bunch of reasons. But the issue is whether the high population states are well run and the small population poorly run, which explains their population differences. Do you believe that?
What I believe is immaterial; I'm asking you what you believe the reasons are for some states low population. You have asserted that "being poorly run" is not the reason and I'm not challenging that assertion. I'm asking you what you think the reasons for these states' low population are, since you do not believe "being poorly run" is one of the reasons.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 04-04-2020 at 12:08 PM. Reason: " not :
  #132  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:09 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's the only argument I ever see -- "but what about the rural areas?"

It's nuts. Most rural areas get no attention anyway -- only a few that happen to be in lucky swing states do now. So they, and a few lucky swing state cities, get all the attention, and the BIGGEST CITIES IN THE COUNTRY get none. There's no reasonable argument that this is better than voters in rural areas counting EXACTLY THE SAME as voters in cities. Geographic areas shouldn't have influence -- only the American people, each exactly the same, should have voting influence, regardless of where they live.
There is also the argument that this was the compromise necessary to form a country in the first place. And if you want to change it, there is an avenue for you to do so. Just get 2/3rds of each chamber of congress and 3/4ths of the states. There is nothing morally superior about a popular vote imposed on an unwilling constituency over an electoral system that was agreed to by each of the states as they entered the union.
  #133  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:28 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
What I believe is immaterial; I'm asking you what you believe the reasons are for some states low population. You have asserted that "being poorly run" is not the reason and I'm not challenging that assertion. I'm asking you what you think the reasons for these states' low population are, since you do not believe "being poorly run" is one of the reasons.
Cold landlocked states like the Dakotas have low populations, coastal states with great weather like California have higher populations.

Do you think liberal policies lead to population density or that population density leads to liberal policies? Because the cause and effect on that matter is pretty well established.

Financial stability doesn't really seem to be driving population either:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...scal-stability

It doesn't really seem to be education
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...ings/education

Perhaps it's just where the jobs are. Where the weather is nice. Perhaps California is not the best run state in the country.
  #134  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:32 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
What I believe is immaterial; I'm asking you what you believe the reasons are for some states low population. You have asserted that "being poorly run" is not the reason and I'm not challenging that assertion. I'm asking you what you think the reasons for these states' low population are, since you do not believe "being poorly run" is one of the reasons.
I say it's not true because it is an idiotic and unsupported position. Low population states have a variety of leadership, both in dominant party and systems. Without any effort to defend that position why should I waste my time researching Maine's population constraints?
  #135  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There is also the argument that this was the compromise necessary to form a country in the first place. And if you want to change it, there is an avenue for you to do so. Just get 2/3rds of each chamber of congress and 3/4ths of the states. There is nothing morally superior about a popular vote imposed on an unwilling constituency over an electoral system that was agreed to by each of the states as they entered the union.
What is this disputing? Yes, it would be very hard to change this. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. The EC is a bullshit system that benefits no one but a handful of swing states, at the expense of everyone else.
  #136  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:35 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I say it's not true because it is an idiotic and unsupported position. Low population states have a variety of leadership, both in dominant party and systems. Without any effort to defend that position why should I waste my time researching Maine's population constraints?
Because otherwise your assertion is also an idiotic and unsupported position. You've offered no compelling argument or reasons to accept your assertion over the one you challenged.
  #137  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:35 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What is this disputing? Yes, it would be very hard to change this. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. The EC is a bullshit system that benefits no one but a handful of swing states, at the expense of everyone else.
Forcing a system that people do not want unto them is not the right thing to do. Doing it because it helps you politically is bullshit.

If it only advantages a handful of states at everyone else's expense then you should have no problems getting the 2/3rds vote in both chambers and 3/4ths of the states.
  #138  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:46 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Because otherwise your assertion is also an idiotic and unsupported position. You've offered no compelling argument or reasons to accept your assertion over the one you challenged.
Oh, ok I did some research. Turns out Maine and Montana are low population states because they start with M and have too many vowels in there name. Prove me wrong, buddy!
  #139  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:55 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,301
Hey dude, that's great. I'll go ahead and discount your assertion since you obviously weren't serious when you made it.
  #140  
Old 04-04-2020, 01:11 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What is this disputing? Yes, it would be very hard to change this. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. The EC is a bullshit system that benefits no one but a handful of swing states, at the expense of everyone else.
But a cadre of slave-raping, white male land-owning geniuses imposed this undemocratic system on the country hundreds of years ago. How dare you criticize, complain or disagree? We must genuflect before these 'founding fathers,' for they are clearly our betters.
  #141  
Old 04-04-2020, 01:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Hey dude, that's great. I'll go ahead and discount your assertion since you obviously weren't serious when you made it.
So, before this discussion you had no idea why Montana and Maine were low population states. And you're still in the same boat now? How am I supposed to carry on?
  #142  
Old 04-04-2020, 01:56 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
So, before this discussion you had no idea why Montana and Maine were low population states. And you're still in the same boat now? How am I supposed to carry on?
Prolly by posting other unsupported assertions; that seems to be your MO.
  #143  
Old 04-04-2020, 02:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
I was challenging an assertion, just like you think you're doing. Sheesh.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-04-2020 at 02:04 PM.
  #144  
Old 04-04-2020, 03:32 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,150
For some reason Biden told Sanders he's vetting VP picks.
  #145  
Old 04-04-2020, 04:01 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I was challenging an assertion, just like you think you're doing. Sheesh.
Do we need another EC debate? If we do, then perhaps another thread?
  #146  
Old 04-04-2020, 04:04 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
For some reason Biden told Sanders he's vetting VP picks.
Why not? It's time. Vetting is a long and difficult procedure.
  #147  
Old 04-04-2020, 04:24 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There has been this exact same dynamic since the very first election was held in this country. If you want to change it, then just get a constitutional amendment. I'm sure your argument of "It's bullshit" will carry the day.

And California and Texas votes matter. In fact with the highest and second highest number of electoral votes their votes matter quite a bit.
But an individual Californian's vote in either a Presidential or Senate election matters less than such votes in any other state. That's just math.

Quote:
With a popular vote, noone would campaign in sparse rural areas. Our national policy would be focused on cities and cities alone. Noone would chase the rural vote because it wold be too much work for too little benefit.
There are scarcely little emphasis put on the rural vote now, so how would that be any different? All emphasis is put on a handful of swing states - none of which is especially rural, and most of the campaigning there is in their cities, as you would expect.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #148  
Old 04-04-2020, 05:28 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why not? It's time. Vetting is a long and difficult procedure.
There's already a VP selection thread, I believe. Take this there, maybe?
  #149  
Old 04-04-2020, 05:32 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I was challenging an assertion, just like you think you're doing. Sheesh.
You made an assertion; I did not. When asked to back it up, you did not or could not. So your assertion was unsupported by any facts. Heck, you admitted you aren't even informed enough to have an opinion, yet there you were posting it.
  #150  
Old 04-04-2020, 05:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
Please spell out my assertion? Quotes will help.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017