Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Your Optimal 2016 Ticket

JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2014 11:48:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's a bit early, sure, but why not prognosticate a bit? Well, ok, strike that; let's idealize politics for just a moment. Let me frame the scenario:

The Princeton/Northwestern paper showing that the U.S. is a de-facto oligarchy was never published -- because, in our imaginary world, it isn't true.

Citizens United vs. The FEC never happened.

Oil subsidies don't exist.

Defense contractors don't own the government.

Etc.

Ok, NOW who is your perfect candidate/VP? lol.

I'll start: Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
YYW
Posts: 36,421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 12:54:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hillary Clinton/Deval Patrick

Ted Cruz/Paul Ryan (because this dynamic duo of dupes will surely bring a DNC win)
Tsar of DDO
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 9:50:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rand Paul/ Ted Cruz vs. Clinton
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 10:07:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/13/2014 11:48:38 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's a bit early, sure, but why not prognosticate a bit? Well, ok, strike that; let's idealize politics for just a moment. Let me frame the scenario:


The Princeton/Northwestern paper showing that the U.S. is a de-facto oligarchy was never published -- because, in our imaginary world, it isn't true.

Citizens United vs. The FEC never happened.

Oil subsidies don't exist.

Defense contractors don't own the government.

Etc.


Ok, NOW who is your perfect candidate/VP? lol.


I'll start: Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

Regardless of what I want, Hillary Clinton will likely win this election.

If Ted Cruz were to run and somehow win, I would seriously have to think about moving to Canada. This is just about impossible, so it doesn't really worry me.

Also, thanks to the Electoral College, the candidates won't care a lick about my state, so this question is really only relevant in a select few states.

Broken system is broken.
George_Clinton
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 10:45:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 10:07:16 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/13/2014 11:48:38 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's a bit early, sure, but why not prognosticate a bit? Well, ok, strike that; let's idealize politics for just a moment. Let me frame the scenario:


The Princeton/Northwestern paper showing that the U.S. is a de-facto oligarchy was never published -- because, in our imaginary world, it isn't true.

Citizens United vs. The FEC never happened.

Oil subsidies don't exist.

Defense contractors don't own the government.

Etc.


Ok, NOW who is your perfect candidate/VP? lol.


I'll start: Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

Regardless of what I want, Hillary Clinton will likely win this election.

If Ted Cruz were to run and somehow win, I would seriously have to think about moving to Canada. This is just about impossible, so it doesn't really worry me.

Also, thanks to the Electoral College, the candidates won't care a lick about my state, so this question is really only relevant in a select few states.

Broken system is broken.

Actually, in this most recent recession Canada did a lot of what the republicans would have done here. They cut spending and taxes, instead of a stimulus. They also cut regulation... So moving to canada, with Cruz in power, would actually be pretty similar. http://nypost.com...
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 10:47:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 10:45:58 AM, George_Clinton wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:07:16 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/13/2014 11:48:38 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's a bit early, sure, but why not prognosticate a bit? Well, ok, strike that; let's idealize politics for just a moment. Let me frame the scenario:


The Princeton/Northwestern paper showing that the U.S. is a de-facto oligarchy was never published -- because, in our imaginary world, it isn't true.

Citizens United vs. The FEC never happened.

Oil subsidies don't exist.

Defense contractors don't own the government.

Etc.


Ok, NOW who is your perfect candidate/VP? lol.


I'll start: Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

Regardless of what I want, Hillary Clinton will likely win this election.

If Ted Cruz were to run and somehow win, I would seriously have to think about moving to Canada. This is just about impossible, so it doesn't really worry me.

Also, thanks to the Electoral College, the candidates won't care a lick about my state, so this question is really only relevant in a select few states.

Broken system is broken.

Actually, in this most recent recession Canada did a lot of what the republicans would have done here. They cut spending and taxes, instead of a stimulus. They also cut regulation... So moving to canada, with Cruz in power, would actually be pretty similar. http://nypost.com...

There is more to Ted Cruz and the Tea Party than cutting spending.
George_Clinton
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 10:48:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 10:47:44 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:45:58 AM, George_Clinton wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:07:16 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/13/2014 11:48:38 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's a bit early, sure, but why not prognosticate a bit? Well, ok, strike that; let's idealize politics for just a moment. Let me frame the scenario:


The Princeton/Northwestern paper showing that the U.S. is a de-facto oligarchy was never published -- because, in our imaginary world, it isn't true.

Citizens United vs. The FEC never happened.

Oil subsidies don't exist.

Defense contractors don't own the government.

Etc.


Ok, NOW who is your perfect candidate/VP? lol.


I'll start: Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

Regardless of what I want, Hillary Clinton will likely win this election.

If Ted Cruz were to run and somehow win, I would seriously have to think about moving to Canada. This is just about impossible, so it doesn't really worry me.

Also, thanks to the Electoral College, the candidates won't care a lick about my state, so this question is really only relevant in a select few states.

Broken system is broken.

Actually, in this most recent recession Canada did a lot of what the republicans would have done here. They cut spending and taxes, instead of a stimulus. They also cut regulation... So moving to canada, with Cruz in power, would actually be pretty similar. http://nypost.com...

There is more to Ted Cruz and the Tea Party than cutting spending.

And shrinking the government and causing deadlock so nothing gets done when they lose congressional majority. And, what's your point?
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 10:50:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 10:48:38 AM, George_Clinton wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:47:44 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:45:58 AM, George_Clinton wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:07:16 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/13/2014 11:48:38 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's a bit early, sure, but why not prognosticate a bit? Well, ok, strike that; let's idealize politics for just a moment. Let me frame the scenario:


The Princeton/Northwestern paper showing that the U.S. is a de-facto oligarchy was never published -- because, in our imaginary world, it isn't true.

Citizens United vs. The FEC never happened.

Oil subsidies don't exist.

Defense contractors don't own the government.

Etc.


Ok, NOW who is your perfect candidate/VP? lol.


I'll start: Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

Regardless of what I want, Hillary Clinton will likely win this election.

If Ted Cruz were to run and somehow win, I would seriously have to think about moving to Canada. This is just about impossible, so it doesn't really worry me.

Also, thanks to the Electoral College, the candidates won't care a lick about my state, so this question is really only relevant in a select few states.

Broken system is broken.

Actually, in this most recent recession Canada did a lot of what the republicans would have done here. They cut spending and taxes, instead of a stimulus. They also cut regulation... So moving to canada, with Cruz in power, would actually be pretty similar. http://nypost.com...

There is more to Ted Cruz and the Tea Party than cutting spending.

And shrinking the government and causing deadlock so nothing gets done when they lose congressional majority. And, what's your point?

What's YOUR point. I was just making a side comment regarding my opinion of Ted Cruz. My comment ultimately was pointing out that my opinion and vote towards the President doesn't really matter at all thanks to the Electoral College.
George_Clinton
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 10:52:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 10:50:14 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:48:38 AM, George_Clinton wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:47:44 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:45:58 AM, George_Clinton wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:07:16 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/13/2014 11:48:38 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's a bit early, sure, but why not prognosticate a bit? Well, ok, strike that; let's idealize politics for just a moment. Let me frame the scenario:


The Princeton/Northwestern paper showing that the U.S. is a de-facto oligarchy was never published -- because, in our imaginary world, it isn't true.

Citizens United vs. The FEC never happened.

Oil subsidies don't exist.

Defense contractors don't own the government.

Etc.


Ok, NOW who is your perfect candidate/VP? lol.


I'll start: Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

Regardless of what I want, Hillary Clinton will likely win this election.

If Ted Cruz were to run and somehow win, I would seriously have to think about moving to Canada. This is just about impossible, so it doesn't really worry me.

Also, thanks to the Electoral College, the candidates won't care a lick about my state, so this question is really only relevant in a select few states.

Broken system is broken.

Actually, in this most recent recession Canada did a lot of what the republicans would have done here. They cut spending and taxes, instead of a stimulus. They also cut regulation... So moving to canada, with Cruz in power, would actually be pretty similar. http://nypost.com...

There is more to Ted Cruz and the Tea Party than cutting spending.

And shrinking the government and causing deadlock so nothing gets done when they lose congressional majority. And, what's your point?

What's YOUR point. I was just making a side comment regarding my opinion of Ted Cruz. My comment ultimately was pointing out that my opinion and vote towards the President doesn't really matter at all thanks to the Electoral College.

Actually it does. IF 51% of a state votes republican, the state sends an elector that the republican party nominated. And... He votes republican. I think only in one or two cases has an elector gone against his party. So your vote does matter, as it affects the electoral college, which then decides the election.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 10:56:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 10:52:59 AM, George_Clinton wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:50:14 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:48:38 AM, George_Clinton wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:47:44 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:45:58 AM, George_Clinton wrote:
At 7/14/2014 10:07:16 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/13/2014 11:48:38 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's a bit early, sure, but why not prognosticate a bit? Well, ok, strike that; let's idealize politics for just a moment. Let me frame the scenario:


The Princeton/Northwestern paper showing that the U.S. is a de-facto oligarchy was never published -- because, in our imaginary world, it isn't true.

Citizens United vs. The FEC never happened.

Oil subsidies don't exist.

Defense contractors don't own the government.

Etc.


Ok, NOW who is your perfect candidate/VP? lol.


I'll start: Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

Regardless of what I want, Hillary Clinton will likely win this election.

If Ted Cruz were to run and somehow win, I would seriously have to think about moving to Canada. This is just about impossible, so it doesn't really worry me.

Also, thanks to the Electoral College, the candidates won't care a lick about my state, so this question is really only relevant in a select few states.

Broken system is broken.

Actually, in this most recent recession Canada did a lot of what the republicans would have done here. They cut spending and taxes, instead of a stimulus. They also cut regulation... So moving to canada, with Cruz in power, would actually be pretty similar. http://nypost.com...

There is more to Ted Cruz and the Tea Party than cutting spending.

And shrinking the government and causing deadlock so nothing gets done when they lose congressional majority. And, what's your point?

What's YOUR point. I was just making a side comment regarding my opinion of Ted Cruz. My comment ultimately was pointing out that my opinion and vote towards the President doesn't really matter at all thanks to the Electoral College.

Actually it does. IF 51% of a state votes republican, the state sends an elector that the republican party nominated. And... He votes republican. I think only in one or two cases has an elector gone against his party. So your vote does matter, as it affects the electoral college, which then decides the election.

Actually it doesn't, my state will 100% no doubt be voting Democrat. There are only certain swing states where a person's vote is actually valuable. Hence, the Candidates will focus the majority of their spending and attention on those states.

The Electoral College is completely outdated, and needs to be abolished.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 2:03:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Isn't the electoral college set up so candidates cant get 90% of the vote in the most populous states and 10% everywhere else, limiting an abuse where all the other states take a back door to 3 or 4 big states?
YYW
Posts: 36,421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 11:34:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 9:49:53 PM, George_Clinton wrote:
Carson/Santorum

...which would usher in a sweeping victory for the Dems!
Tsar of DDO
George_Clinton
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 10:06:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 11:34:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/14/2014 9:49:53 PM, George_Clinton wrote:
Carson/Santorum

...which would usher in a sweeping victory for the Dems!

Santorum maybe, and even Carson since he is too smart to win. I mean he has a great story (mother cant read, welfare family, single mother) and rising to world class brain surgeon, but I dont think he would win because he is too smart. What he says would be way above what most people would understand--and the way he is isn't political, he wont twist the questions but answer them head on. So Santorum may lead to a dem win with extremism like me ( ;) ), but Carson would lose because he is, well, too experienced at life.

I mean Carson would win every debate--even if you disagree with him--against most politicians in *our* eyes, but lose to most others. And he would do well in interviewed in *our* eyes, but probably be too confusing for the average American.

You dont have to agree with Carson to say that he is a brilliant man. I mean I think most educated liberals would have to agree he would be a smart president, even if he did things that would hurt the country (in their opinion).
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 11:38:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/14/2014 2:03:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Isn't the electoral college set up so candidates cant get 90% of the vote in the most populous states and 10% everywhere else, limiting an abuse where all the other states take a back door to 3 or 4 big states?

That's what people claim, but in reality it only makes it so that a few states actually have a say. People end up spending the majority of their money on states like Florida and Ohio, simply because they're try to play the Electoral College, not actually win the popular vote.

There have been a few instances where a person has lost the popular vote and won the election.

Basically, the Electoral College was put in place during a time where the American people had certain disadvantages, 1) They had limited information on the candidates, 2) Communication was very slow. Due to this, each state was assigned Electors who would then cast their vote on behalf of the state. These people could choose to either agree with the state, or (supposedly in their best interest) disagree and vote against the wishes of the state. This of course applies only to certain states, but is still in effect.

The Electoral College is no longer necessary and is harmful to our democracy.

Simply by going to a popular vote will do. Our population is distributed enough so that the entire country would need to be addressed.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 11:53:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 11:38:02 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/14/2014 2:03:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Isn't the electoral college set up so candidates cant get 90% of the vote in the most populous states and 10% everywhere else, limiting an abuse where all the other states take a back door to 3 or 4 big states?

That's what people claim, but in reality it only makes it so that a few states actually have a say. People end up spending the majority of their money on states like Florida and Ohio, simply because they're try to play the Electoral College, not actually win the popular vote.

There have been a few instances where a person has lost the popular vote and won the election.

Basically, the Electoral College was put in place during a time where the American people had certain disadvantages, 1) They had limited information on the candidates, 2) Communication was very slow. Due to this, each state was assigned Electors who would then cast their vote on behalf of the state. These people could choose to either agree with the state, or (supposedly in their best interest) disagree and vote against the wishes of the state. This of course applies only to certain states, but is still in effect.

The Electoral College is no longer necessary and is harmful to our democracy.

Simply by going to a popular vote will do. Our population is distributed enough so that the entire country would need to be addressed.

That would be kinda funny if they abolished the EC and then passed laws that gave States with major seaports huge subsidies screwing over every low population state not on the coast. Say it would never happen, lol. Without EC, you would NEVER hear about Ohio again. :)
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:05:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 11:53:27 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 11:38:02 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/14/2014 2:03:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Isn't the electoral college set up so candidates cant get 90% of the vote in the most populous states and 10% everywhere else, limiting an abuse where all the other states take a back door to 3 or 4 big states?

That's what people claim, but in reality it only makes it so that a few states actually have a say. People end up spending the majority of their money on states like Florida and Ohio, simply because they're try to play the Electoral College, not actually win the popular vote.

There have been a few instances where a person has lost the popular vote and won the election.

Basically, the Electoral College was put in place during a time where the American people had certain disadvantages, 1) They had limited information on the candidates, 2) Communication was very slow. Due to this, each state was assigned Electors who would then cast their vote on behalf of the state. These people could choose to either agree with the state, or (supposedly in their best interest) disagree and vote against the wishes of the state. This of course applies only to certain states, but is still in effect.

The Electoral College is no longer necessary and is harmful to our democracy.

Simply by going to a popular vote will do. Our population is distributed enough so that the entire country would need to be addressed.

That would be kinda funny if they abolished the EC and then passed laws that gave States with major seaports huge subsidies screwing over every low population state not on the coast. Say it would never happen, lol. Without EC, you would NEVER hear about Ohio again. :)

I can't believe you're actually defending this utterly broken system, but okay.

It is inherently unfair because it gives more weight to the votes of certain citizens than others. It also voids out all the dissenting opinions within individual states. If the Dems take a state by 50.01% then they take all the delegates, even though the state is pretty much divided on who to elect.

It is conceivable for a person to win 22% of the population, simply be taking up all the states with the most value to their votes and then just breaking over 50%.

We also don't need Electors representing us, possibly even disagreeing with us as we are more than well informed on the Candidates.

Abolishing the EC would force Candidates to try and get as many votes as possible from each state. While Wyoming would probably end up getting skipped. That doesn't stop it from getting skipped now, as the Presidential Candidates never visit it anyways. Only swing states such as Ohio and Florida get most of the visits which the top 3 states amount to about half of the money spend and visits.

It's broken, wake up.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If every state was equal, culturally and geographically, I would be for popular vote over EC, but they just are not.

I just wouldn't feel comfortable with California telling the country how things should be done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:13:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
President Ted Cruz and Vice President Rand Paul.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:22:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:08:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If every state was equal, culturally and geographically, I would be for popular vote over EC, but they just are not.

I just wouldn't feel comfortable with California telling the country how things should be done.

Ignorance..

California is only about 12% of the Population, and the second largest is New York City at 6%. So if a person won 100% of the 2 largest states they would only have 18% of the total population. Usually the Dems only get 63% of Cali, which is 7ish% of total Population and New York is about the same, which would be 3.7%. That would be a total of a little over 10% of the total amount needed.

Does 10% really decide the vote, or make it so that these states alone would be focused on?

Each citizen needs to have equal weight to his vote, that's the only way to have a fair election. Also every vote needs to count, which would end the madness where we have people win the Popular vote and then lose the election.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:34:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:22:26 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:08:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If every state was equal, culturally and geographically, I would be for popular vote over EC, but they just are not.

I just wouldn't feel comfortable with California telling the country how things should be done.

Ignorance..

California is only about 12% of the Population, and the second largest is New York City at 6%. So if a person won 100% of the 2 largest states they would only have 18% of the total population. Usually the Dems only get 63% of Cali, which is 7ish% of total Population and New York is about the same, which would be 3.7%. That would be a total of a little over 10% of the total amount needed.

Does 10% really decide the vote, or make it so that these states alone would be focused on?

Each citizen needs to have equal weight to his vote, that's the only way to have a fair election. Also every vote needs to count, which would end the madness where we have people win the Popular vote and then lose the election.

So you are okay with Dems winning the election with 40.1% of the approval of every other state?

I'm not.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 12:53:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:34:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:22:26 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:08:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If every state was equal, culturally and geographically, I would be for popular vote over EC, but they just are not.

I just wouldn't feel comfortable with California telling the country how things should be done.

Ignorance..

California is only about 12% of the Population, and the second largest is New York City at 6%. So if a person won 100% of the 2 largest states they would only have 18% of the total population. Usually the Dems only get 63% of Cali, which is 7ish% of total Population and New York is about the same, which would be 3.7%. That would be a total of a little over 10% of the total amount needed.

Does 10% really decide the vote, or make it so that these states alone would be focused on?

Each citizen needs to have equal weight to his vote, that's the only way to have a fair election. Also every vote needs to count, which would end the madness where we have people win the Popular vote and then lose the election.

So you are okay with Dems winning the election with 40.1% of the approval of every other state?

I'm not.

The number of states doesn't matter to me. The number of citizens voting for their President matters to me.

If the President has the approval of the majority of the population, and these voters come from all 50 states (and abroad) then I am just fine with that. Certain states should not have more value attributed to their vote. A person in Wyoming and California should have the same and equal value to their vote for president. That's called fairness.

While it is possible to win the election with 40% of the states support in a popular contest, that would be rare and better than having someone with far less % of the total population winning by playing the Electoral College.

Every vote should count regardless of state, and regardless of who wins that state. The Electoral College is a broken system, and it is only kept in place because the people in power utilize this broken system and manipulate it to gain more power.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 1:01:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:53:37 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:34:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:22:26 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:08:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If every state was equal, culturally and geographically, I would be for popular vote over EC, but they just are not.

I just wouldn't feel comfortable with California telling the country how things should be done.

Ignorance..

California is only about 12% of the Population, and the second largest is New York City at 6%. So if a person won 100% of the 2 largest states they would only have 18% of the total population. Usually the Dems only get 63% of Cali, which is 7ish% of total Population and New York is about the same, which would be 3.7%. That would be a total of a little over 10% of the total amount needed.

Does 10% really decide the vote, or make it so that these states alone would be focused on?

Each citizen needs to have equal weight to his vote, that's the only way to have a fair election. Also every vote needs to count, which would end the madness where we have people win the Popular vote and then lose the election.

So you are okay with Dems winning the election with 40.1% of the approval of every other state?

I'm not.

The number of states doesn't matter to me. The number of citizens voting for their President matters to me.

If the President has the approval of the majority of the population, and these voters come from all 50 states (and abroad) then I am just fine with that. Certain states should not have more value attributed to their vote. A person in Wyoming and California should have the same and equal value to their vote for president. That's called fairness.

While it is possible to win the election with 40% of the states support in a popular contest, that would be rare and better than having someone with far less % of the total population winning by playing the Electoral College.

Every vote should count regardless of state, and regardless of who wins that state. The Electoral College is a broken system, and it is only kept in place because the people in power utilize this broken system and manipulate it to gain more power.

I TOTALLY GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT DON'T BE SUPRISED WHEN THAT 63% GETS INTO A MUCH HIGHER BRACKET AND YOU CANT WIN WITH 70% OF THE OPPOSITION VOTE ANYMORE. oops caps too lazy to rewrite.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 1:18:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 12:34:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:22:26 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:08:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If every state was equal, culturally and geographically, I would be for popular vote over EC, but they just are not.

I just wouldn't feel comfortable with California telling the country how things should be done.

Ignorance..

California is only about 12% of the Population, and the second largest is New York City at 6%. So if a person won 100% of the 2 largest states they would only have 18% of the total population. Usually the Dems only get 63% of Cali, which is 7ish% of total Population and New York is about the same, which would be 3.7%. That would be a total of a little over 10% of the total amount needed.

Does 10% really decide the vote, or make it so that these states alone would be focused on?

Each citizen needs to have equal weight to his vote, that's the only way to have a fair election. Also every vote needs to count, which would end the madness where we have people win the Popular vote and then lose the election.

So you are okay with Dems winning the election with 40.1% of the approval of every other state?

I'm not.

It's also possible with the Electoral College to not have the majority of the states, such as with JFK and with Jimmy Carter for a couple more recent examples.

And mathematically speaking, it is possible to win the EC with 24% of the states approval.

Your objection is refuted.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 1:21:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 1:01:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:53:37 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:34:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:22:26 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:08:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If every state was equal, culturally and geographically, I would be for popular vote over EC, but they just are not.

I just wouldn't feel comfortable with California telling the country how things should be done.

Ignorance..

California is only about 12% of the Population, and the second largest is New York City at 6%. So if a person won 100% of the 2 largest states they would only have 18% of the total population. Usually the Dems only get 63% of Cali, which is 7ish% of total Population and New York is about the same, which would be 3.7%. That would be a total of a little over 10% of the total amount needed.

Does 10% really decide the vote, or make it so that these states alone would be focused on?

Each citizen needs to have equal weight to his vote, that's the only way to have a fair election. Also every vote needs to count, which would end the madness where we have people win the Popular vote and then lose the election.

So you are okay with Dems winning the election with 40.1% of the approval of every other state?

I'm not.

The number of states doesn't matter to me. The number of citizens voting for their President matters to me.

If the President has the approval of the majority of the population, and these voters come from all 50 states (and abroad) then I am just fine with that. Certain states should not have more value attributed to their vote. A person in Wyoming and California should have the same and equal value to their vote for president. That's called fairness.

While it is possible to win the election with 40% of the states support in a popular contest, that would be rare and better than having someone with far less % of the total population winning by playing the Electoral College.

Every vote should count regardless of state, and regardless of who wins that state. The Electoral College is a broken system, and it is only kept in place because the people in power utilize this broken system and manipulate it to gain more power.

I TOTALLY GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT DON'T BE SUPRISED WHEN THAT 63% GETS INTO A MUCH HIGHER BRACKET AND YOU CANT WIN WITH 70% OF THE OPPOSITION VOTE ANYMORE. oops caps too lazy to rewrite.

This then points out another huge issue with the EC. Every vote beyond 50.01% is effectively wasted, as it is only the votes up to 50.01% that are necessary in order to earn the states delegates. This means it doesn't matter how much support the citizens of a state give a candidate, as the total value of those individual's votes are restrained by this broken system.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 1:24:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 1:21:44 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 1:01:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:53:37 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:34:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:22:26 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/15/2014 12:08:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If every state was equal, culturally and geographically, I would be for popular vote over EC, but they just are not.

I just wouldn't feel comfortable with California telling the country how things should be done.

Ignorance..

California is only about 12% of the Population, and the second largest is New York City at 6%. So if a person won 100% of the 2 largest states they would only have 18% of the total population. Usually the Dems only get 63% of Cali, which is 7ish% of total Population and New York is about the same, which would be 3.7%. That would be a total of a little over 10% of the total amount needed.

Does 10% really decide the vote, or make it so that these states alone would be focused on?

Each citizen needs to have equal weight to his vote, that's the only way to have a fair election. Also every vote needs to count, which would end the madness where we have people win the Popular vote and then lose the election.

So you are okay with Dems winning the election with 40.1% of the approval of every other state?

I'm not.

The number of states doesn't matter to me. The number of citizens voting for their President matters to me.

If the President has the approval of the majority of the population, and these voters come from all 50 states (and abroad) then I am just fine with that. Certain states should not have more value attributed to their vote. A person in Wyoming and California should have the same and equal value to their vote for president. That's called fairness.

While it is possible to win the election with 40% of the states support in a popular contest, that would be rare and better than having someone with far less % of the total population winning by playing the Electoral College.

Every vote should count regardless of state, and regardless of who wins that state. The Electoral College is a broken system, and it is only kept in place because the people in power utilize this broken system and manipulate it to gain more power.

I TOTALLY GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT DON'T BE SUPRISED WHEN THAT 63% GETS INTO A MUCH HIGHER BRACKET AND YOU CANT WIN WITH 70% OF THE OPPOSITION VOTE ANYMORE. oops caps too lazy to rewrite.

This then points out another huge issue with the EC. Every vote beyond 50.01% is effectively wasted, as it is only the votes up to 50.01% that are necessary in order to earn the states delegates. This means it doesn't matter how much support the citizens of a state give a candidate, as the total value of those individual's votes are restrained by this broken system.

I view the cap as a good thing. Do you really want to motivate the government to subsidize a large state into 90% compliance? It caps the potential for supreme State vote buying.