Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
LasraelLarson

Have you voted? ;)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Darmokk said:

Whatever the theory is...

... in practice what those who defend the EC right now really want to keep is the uneven voting power per voter.

The question is if even voting power in a federal system is fair. America should just have better candidates that win both the most states and the popular vote ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Darmokk said:

Whatever the theory is...

... in practice what those who defend the EC right now really want to keep is the uneven voting power per voter.

And likewise, those decrying the system are in favor of mob rule, and don't care about minorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

Been that way since it was formed in the first place. Known factor accepted and built into its creation for reasons already mentioned in this thread. Senate works the same way regarding effective voting power per voter.

The EC was "created". The uneven weight per votes is more random.

You could have an EC without uneven voter power. That would still allow winner-takes-all per state.

8 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

And likewise, those decrying the system are in favor of mob rule, and don't care about minorities.

White trash doesn't count as a minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Spoken like a true racist....

Allright.

Can you explain in your own words why your personal vote in the presidential election should count 2-3 times more than mine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Darmokk said:

Allright.

Can you explain in your own words why your personal vote in the presidential election should count 2-3 times more than mine?

Because if we don't uplift the areas (like Wyoming, for example), and at least try to level the playing field, then California, New York, Florida, and Texas are going to steamroll the rest of the country.

Why should any of those states dictate national policy to affect somewhere like Wyoming or Montana when most of the population will likely never see that state?

Likewise, we need to look out for the minorities (which aren't white trash btw) so the majority doesn't trample over them because the minorities never get a voice.  This is the exact same reason why the Senate was created to be two votes per state, and both the House and the Senate must agree on legislation before it goes to the President to be signed into law.

That we need to have this discussion at all shows just how bad the US education system is, because knowing how our government works, and why it works the way it does, should be common knowledge for all US citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allright, so a minority should not be dominated by a majority. And you prevent that by "equaling out voting power".

So how about we go to Wyoming and give all the -say- black people so much more voting weight per person that it matches the total voting power of everybody else.

That is a perfectly fine thing to do under your plan, is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Darmokk said:

Allright, so a minority should not be dominated by a majority. And you prevent that by "equaling out voting power".

So how about we go to Wyoming and give all the -say- black people so much more voting weight per person that it matches the total voting power of everybody else.

That is a perfectly fine thing to do under your plan, is it not?

That's not how it works.

It's not done on a per person basis, but on a per district

That much should have been obvious... but apparently you're stupider than I thought and needed to have something that fundamental explained.

I'm not sure how we can have an intelligent conversation on this if I need to keep explaining the fundamentals of American government to you, because you keep demonstrating a tremendous lack of knowledge on the way the US government actually functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Darmokk said:

The EC was "created". The uneven weight per votes is more random.

You could have an EC without uneven voter power. That would still allow winner-takes-all per state.

Again, the EC was set up to elect the President so that he represented a broad swath of America and not just the highly populated areas. That would have been Virginia and a few other states early on, which changed to New York and Pennsylvania through the 1800s then moved to California, Florida, New York and Texas as the population shifted over the decades.

Yes, you could have an EC that exactly reflected each State's population but then you wouldn't have a President that reflected a broad part of America. Instead, the President would represent those States that had the highest concentration of the population. Currently the 10 most populous States have about 54% of the US population.

You could also have a Senate that didn't have unequal voting power too. It would look pretty much the same as the House. 435 Senators and 435 Representatives. And the EC would have 870 members and your dream of unequal votes would be solved. Good luck on getting that through constitutional amendment muster. Hell, about half the States wouldn't even have signed on to the Constitution under that scenario in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you are saying is that you cherry-pick one particular minority - rural or uneducated whites - and you want to give them enough voting power to match or overcome everybody combined who isn't in that minority. You cherry-pick that particular minority although there are many others. How about making left-handed people have equal voting power than right-handed ones?

As far as States not signing on. Good luck. The only reason why many of those white trash states have any economy at all is that our working coast tax dollars are used to subsidize farming or that due to majority issues in congress military and other government production is diverted to those areas. You can go, no problem. Oklabexit is fine with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. "White trash states"? Your condescension won't convince anyone that your position deserves consideration. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darmokk said:

All you are saying is that you cherry-pick one particular minority - rural or uneducated whites - and you want to give them enough voting power to match or overcome everybody combined who isn't in that minority. You cherry-pick that particular minority although there are many others. How about making left-handed people have equal voting power than right-handed ones?

As far as States not signing on. Good luck. The only reason why many of those white trash states have any economy at all is that our working coast tax dollars are used to subsidize farming or that due to majority issues in congress military and other government production is diverted to those areas. You can go, no problem. Oklabexit is fine with me.

Look ma, a racist is in action because it has no concept of a non-white minority.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darmokk said:

All you are saying is that you cherry-pick one particular minority - rural or uneducated whites - and you want to give them enough voting power to match or overcome everybody combined who isn't in that minority. You cherry-pick that particular minority although there are many others. How about making left-handed people have equal voting power than right-handed ones?

As far as States not signing on. Good luck. The only reason why many of those white trash states have any economy at all is that our working coast tax dollars are used to subsidize farming or that due to majority issues in congress military and other government production is diverted to those areas. You can go, no problem. Oklabexit is fine with me.

Stop whining, Darmokk.  My candidate didn't win, either, and I'm not showing even an infinitesimal fraction of the infantile angst that you are showing.

 

Tell me, did you go door-to-door, do any letter-writing campaigns, work for the local fundraising outlets, hold any rallies, host any banquets, or do anything to see your candidate gain more ground?  If you didn't, then shut up and sit down and take your lumps and, maybe, think about better ways to get your next candidate of choice across the finish line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/books/richard-rortys-1998-book-suggested-election-2016-was-coming.html?smid=tw-nytimesarts&smtyp=cur&_r=2

Three days after the presidential election, an astute law professor tweeted a picture of three paragraphs, very slightly condensed, from Richard Rorty’s “Achieving Our Country,” published in 1998. It was retweeted thousands of times, generating a run on the book — its ranking soared on Amazon and by day’s end it was no longer available. (Harvard University Press is reprinting the book for the first time since 2010, a spokeswoman for the publisher said.)

It’s worth rereading those tweeted paragraphs:

[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. …

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past 40 years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. … All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Mr. Rorty, an American pragmatist philosopher, died in 2007. Were he still alive, he’d likely be deluged with phone calls from strangers, begging him to pick their stocks.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how we have all this hand wringing and doom-saying....

And yet no legislation has been passed yet or indication that it's actually going to go that way.

It's almost like part of our population has been so thoroughly brainwashed with propaganda to believe that all Republicans and Conservatives are the spawn of Satan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2016 at 9:06 PM, Jedy2 said:

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past 40 years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion.
 

Oh come on.  Do you really think that will happen?  Or do you just think the black and women supremacist groups will suffer a minor setback and maybe we won't be forced to call someone Mx as their pronoun or face prosecution for a few years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JRonnie said:

Oh come on.  Do you really think that will happen?  

I KNOW that "foreigners", "chocolate", "faggots" and women are under severe attack by reigning Polish National-Catho-Socialists.

My knowledge of USA is limited to reading, watching and a short visit to Anchorage, but by golly, yes, I see it happening. Surely female supremacists are fairy creatures, we sure could use some in Poland. They would not survive long. :(  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2016 at 1:48 PM, Jedy2 said:

I KNOW that "foreigners", "chocolate", "faggots" and women are under severe attack by reigning Polish National-Catho-Socialists.

My knowledge of USA is limited to reading, watching and a short visit to Anchorage, but by golly, yes, I see it happening. Surely female supremacists are fairy creatures, we sure could use some in Poland. They would not survive long. :(  

Maybe I'm missing something, but what do these happenings in Poland have to do with the last US Presidential election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but what do these happenings in Poland have to do with the last US Presidential election?

It's not that far of a leap to see what is happening in one part of the world--recognize a pattern--and see the formation of that same pattern elsewhere.

If you take an honest look at who Trump is filling his cabinet with, those fears are not entirely unfounded.

Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think a change to the electoral college is warranted. As it stands now, it currently discourages the non-dominant party in each state from voting. A plausible change, in my opinion, would be to make the electoral college mostly proportional by making the electors who represent the House proportional and having the candidate who receives the plurality of votes receive the 2 votes from the electors who represent the Senate.

Thoughts? I think that would give a definite advantage to whoever won the majority of states while also recognizing votes that typically don't matter in states that always vote one way, like New York, California, Alabama, while keeping the original sentiment behind the original electoral college system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Papi said:

It's not that far of a leap to see what is happening in one part of the world--recognize a pattern--and see the formation of that same pattern elsewhere.

If you take an honest look at who Trump is filling his cabinet with, those fears are not entirely unfounded.

Time will tell.

But on the other hand, when the losing party is throwing a temper tantrum that they LOST, it kinda blows the credibility of those concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Eredor said:

Honestly, I think a change to the electoral college is warranted. As it stands now, it currently discourages the non-dominant party in each state from voting. A plausible change, in my opinion, would be to make the electoral college mostly proportional by making the electors who represent the House proportional and having the candidate who receives the plurality of votes receive the 2 votes from the electors who represent the Senate.

Thoughts? I think that would give a definite advantage to whoever won the majority of states while also recognizing votes that typically don't matter in states that always vote one way, like New York, California, Alabama, while keeping the original sentiment behind the original electoral college system.

Canada is currently studying electoral reform... kinda... and there will be butt-hurt no matter what is eventually implemented.

The USA system is pretty good IMO as you have Congress which reflects majority votes in 535 congressional districts as well as the Senate which provides a more regional perspective by balancing 2 representatives for the most populous states with 2 representatives for the smaller population states along with the electoral college for the Presidency.

Proportional representation is appealing but generally results in alliances which can be unstable and place functioning government in jeopardy for each vote.

In Canada we currently have a large parliamentary majority held by a party which won 39% of the popular vote.

Each form of government is going to have someone butt-hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

But on the other hand, when the losing party is throwing a temper tantrum that they LOST, it kinda blows the credibility of those concerns.

actually it doesn't.  both sides of the argument have literal nut jobs/spokespersons so I wouldn't use that to distract from the actual facts and history of his soon-to-be cabinet.  but let's not bring "tantrums" into this.  Trump keeps whining on twitter about how he would have won the popular vote if not for the "millions" of fraudulent voters (a claim NO ONE can back up with any proof) and how SNL is "unwatchable"...even though he is on twitter admitting he keeps watching it (because, for some reason the cast of Hamilton and SNL is an issue of concern for the president-elect).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Democratic party doesn't seem to realize the dire condition it is currently in.  things are actually going to get worse for the Democrats yet.

someone of this caliber (if he was still around) could rectify things:

600full-john-f.-kennedy-jr.jpg

sadly, his time on the stage was cut short... 

alas, with JFK Jr. out of the way, Hillary took the NY seat that was most certainly going to be his to fill.

imagine what could have been avoided had he still been on the scene.

...

currently Democrats are completely off track & the fracturing is about to intensify, especially if this guy:

Keith_Democrat_Congressman-Ellison-640x3

(Kieth Ellison) manages to gain traction.

Democrats are soo fixated on the Trump phenomena, they are rather oblivious to their own current peril.

2018 will arrive and it looks like Democrats will be almost completely obliterated.  & again in 2020...

i think Trump will get a full 8 years, by the looks of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

the Democratic party doesn't seem to realize the dire condition it is currently in.  things are actually going to get worse for the Democrats yet.

someone of this caliber (if he was still around) could rectify things:

600full-john-f.-kennedy-jr.jpg

sadly, his time on the stage was cut short... 

alas, with JFK Jr. out of the way, Hillary took the NY seat that was most certainly going to be his to fill.

imagine what could have been avoided had he still been on the scene.

...

currently Democrats are completely off track & the fracturing is about to intensify, especially if this guy:

Keith_Democrat_Congressman-Ellison-640x3

(Kieth Ellison) manages to gain traction.

Democrats are soo fixated on the Trump phenomena, they are rather oblivious to their own current peril.

2018 will arrive and it looks like Democrats will be almost completely obliterated.  & again in 2020...

i think Trump will get a full 8 years, by the looks of things.

Bit early to say that Democrats will be obliterated in coming elections since the President's popularity usually is the determining factor on who wins those seats up for grabs. If Trump is a popular/good president, sure. If he isn't, then it will obviously shift back towards the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×