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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
24 minutes ago, Eredor said:

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.

well that may indeed be a factor, regardless of all the screeching from the same elements paraded on the TV regarding Trump...  his popularity has risen since the election and he hasn't even been inaugurated.

that aside, there are 3 significant fractures happening withing the Dem party at the moment & those rumblings are about to get louder.  they are an aging party & as far as fresh & new is concerned, they are coming up VERY stale.  i am watching this unfold & you may call it premature, but they are in serious trouble.

anyway, they don;'t have this waiting in the wings, which would help significantly:

 

regardless, come 2018, i suspect DC will be VERY red.  even more than it is currently.

 

Share this post


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

 

(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.

Makes me think of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK who has the support of the fringe left and the Labour Party electoral process but is toxic to the greater population. Will the Democrats go down a similar road? It could be interesting as the Democrats are also very weak in the State governments where the parties draw upon innovative thinkers and talent.

Share this post


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

Makes me think of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK who has the support of the fringe left and the Labour Party electoral process but is toxic to the greater population. Will the Democrats go down a similar road? It could be interesting as the Democrats are also very weak in the State governments where the parties draw upon innovative thinkers and talent.

It seems to be happening all over.  The right and far right parties seem to be on the rise and the left and far left parties dont seem to know what to do..  They have lost their way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fittybolger said:

Makes me think of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK who has the support of the fringe left and the Labour Party electoral process but is toxic to the greater population. Will the Democrats go down a similar road? It could be interesting as the Democrats are also very weak in the State governments where the parties draw upon innovative thinkers and talent.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour stances are almost unrecognizable to that which birthed that party.  fringe indeed!  & a VERY significantly large portion of that fringe will gladly show up to, "Shut it down" or even "Burn it Down."  but those same fringy enthusiasts tend to flake out when it comes to voting...  must be the isolation of it being a solitary act, rather than a group activity.

Jeremy Corbyns party is in for a decimating of its own, next time a contest that involves a vote comes round.

 

Kieth Ellison is an amalgam of similarly dubious endorsements that include, if i am not mistaken...  the schizophrenic opportunist Michael Moore.

39 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

It seems to be happening all over.  The right and far right parties seem to be on the rise and the left and far left parties dont seem to know what to do..  They have lost their way

Italy just had a big nationalist referendum surge yesterday.  most of Frances left have dropped out of the next leadership race.  there are less publicized shifts in other EU nations as well, like Finland.  even Sweden though seemingly entrenched in virtue signaling its left ideologues...  has a quiet counter-undercurrent, that will likely erupt in the near future as well.

 

on a different tract...  i hope Trump chooses this guy for Secretary of State:Dana-Rohrabacher.jpg

Dana Rohrabacher would be excellent at the job, experienced & really insightful to boot!

Share this post


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

It seems to be happening all over.  The right and far right parties seem to be on the rise and the left and far left parties dont seem to know what to do..  They have lost their way

The left seem mystified by the fact that after calling great swaths of the population racist, bigoted, terrible people why they didn't suddenly go vote for them.  Ultimately they've disappeared up their own 'progressive' (actually regressive) assholes and have lost touch with what the average voter wants, which is who the left was supposed to be representing in the first place.

 

9 hours ago, Papi said:

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 yet that is exactly what the left is suggesting by trying to push these recounts in close states.

Share this post


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

And he's also a New Yorker that doesn't exhale, but talk.

If you're paying attention to EVERYTHING a New Yorker says, you're doing it wrong.

Personally, I'd rather have Carson as President, as he seems like he's level headed enough to actually do well.  I'm hoping that a Cabinet position will help him towards that.

Are you going to use that excuse the entire 4 years? So Trump gets a free pass for being a whiny, thin-skinned bitch but the pundits on the left get blasted for throwing tantrums?  

The only person more unqualified than Trump is Carson (by his own admission). 

If nothing else, it will be an interesting 4 years.

1 hour ago, JRonnie said:

The left seem mystified by the fact that after calling great swaths of the population racist, bigoted, terrible people why they didn't suddenly go vote for them.  Ultimately they've disappeared up their own 'progressive' (actually regressive) assholes and have lost touch with what the average voter wants, which is who the left was supposed to be representing in the first place.

 

And yet that is exactly what the left is suggesting by trying to push these recounts in close states.

News flash, a great swath of the population is racist and bigoted.  When you cut through the bullshit, I don't think calling a spade a spade made any difference in the voting.

And let's not forget that half the population didn't even vote.  And the fact that Clinton has 2.5 million more in actual votes.

 

 

Share this post


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

Nah, but I'm not going to complain about someone using Twitter for exactly what it was designed for.

If he's doing that in other channels, then that assessment is correct, but from what I've seen, it's just Twitter.

It's like accusing a black man of being black, and then crucifying him for his blackness.

Worst analogy ever.  You can't be seriously trying to argue that his Twitter "persona" is any different than his real life one or that he communicates any differently with his "other channels".

And he's not just "someone"--he's the next fucking POTUS.  

Share this post


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

All depends on how the individual uses social media, and if they're actually trying to carry on a conversation, or just posting one liners about topics, basically doing a thought dump.

Who's still just another fucking man, with his flaws and all.

Or do you elevate your political figures above the state of us mere mortals, like how that psychotic bitch Clinton wants us to do?

I've seen Trump debate, do interviews and (unfortunately) I've seen his twitter account.  Unless he is a master strategist and purposefully playing to the lowest common denominator on purpose (to continuously rally his base) and fool everyone...then he simply is what he is:  a very thin-skinned, egotistical, spoiled, whiny bitch.  

I'm not talking about just any political figure.  There is a reason why it is our nation's highest office.  Bush, even for all his faults, far outclasses Trump.  Let that one sink in for a bit.

But I'm done going around with you on this.  I think Trump has drawn out the worst in my fellow countrymen/women, in a time when we couldn't be more divided.  Actually, I'd say he's amplified it--both parties are responsible for the current divide.  They spend more time bickering and sticking to bullshit partisan lines instead of actually getting shit done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...