Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The US electoral system needs reform

Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:44:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

Yes Democratic at the municipal and state level. Federally no.

That is what state municipal and state elections are for. The Federal isn't suppose have as much power as in does. According to the Constitution Federal elections are second to State election. State election were suppose to have a much greater effect.

That is why states like California and New York have more electoral votes.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:44:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

What does any one particular "state" matter in that regard then?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:46:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

In my opinion everyone's vote should be equally important in determining the result. Democracy is flawed if some votes are of more value than others.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:48:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:44:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

Yes Democratic at the municipal and state level. Federally no.

That is what state municipal and state elections are for. The Federal isn't suppose have as much power as in does. According to the Constitution Federal elections are second to State election. State election were suppose to have a much greater effect.

That is why states like California and New York have more electoral votes.

If you agree the democracy is flawed why not join me in supporting reform?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:53:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:46:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

In my opinion everyone's vote should be equally important in determining the result. Democracy is flawed if some votes are of more value than others.

Each person's vote IS equal, 100%. Population of state is what changes the number of electoral votes each state holds.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:54:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:44:21 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

What does any one particular "state" matter in that regard then?

What do you mean?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:00:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:53:25 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:46:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

In my opinion everyone's vote should be equally important in determining the result. Democracy is flawed if some votes are of more value than others.

Each person's vote IS equal, 100%. Population of state is what changes the number of electoral votes each state holds.

False. The nature of demographics leads to certain states coming in with huge majorities and while others have slim majorities. This allows candidates to win with a series of narrow wins in individual target states while potentially completely ignoring other states and facing huge defeats. Such a system is fundamentally flawed and in my opinion has the potential to be extremely divisive.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:05:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

Then you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic. Go get a basic seventh grade education.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:07:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:48:03 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:44:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

Yes Democratic at the municipal and state level. Federally no.

That is what state municipal and state elections are for. The Federal isn't suppose have as much power as in does. According to the Constitution Federal elections are second to State election. State election were suppose to have a much greater effect.

That is why states like California and New York have more electoral votes.

If you agree the democracy is flawed why not join me in supporting reform?

How did you get that from what I said? Let me repeat
Not a Democracy, We are a Constitutional Republic
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:10:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:05:11 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

Then you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic. Go get a basic seventh grade education.

Irrelevant to this thread. I'm talking about how representatives are elected not how laws are passed.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:13:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:00:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:53:25 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:46:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

In my opinion everyone's vote should be equally important in determining the result. Democracy is flawed if some votes are of more value than others.

Each person's vote IS equal, 100%. Population of state is what changes the number of electoral votes each state holds.

False. The nature of demographics leads to certain states coming in with huge majorities and while others have slim majorities. This allows candidates to win with a series of narrow wins in individual target states while potentially completely ignoring other states and facing huge defeats. Such a system is fundamentally flawed and in my opinion has the potential to be extremely divisive.

270 of 538 to clinch the white house. This is a majority of state based votes.

"Such a system is fundamentally flawed and in my opinion has the potential to be extremely divisive."
^ This is exactly what occurs in a Democracy.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:15:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:07:58 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:48:03 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:44:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

Yes Democratic at the municipal and state level. Federally no.

That is what state municipal and state elections are for. The Federal isn't suppose have as much power as in does. According to the Constitution Federal elections are second to State election. State election were suppose to have a much greater effect.

That is why states like California and New York have more electoral votes.

If you agree the democracy is flawed why not join me in supporting reform?

How did you get that from what I said? Let me repeat
Not a Democracy, We are a Constitutional Republic

The system is fundamentally flawed. Simple as that. It allows candidates with a smaller proportion of the vote to win. That's undemocratic and in my opinion unfair.

Are you saying you support undemocratic electoral systems where people with a smaller proportion of the vote can be called the winner?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
vortex86
Posts: 571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:18:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:15:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:07:58 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:48:03 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:44:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

Yes Democratic at the municipal and state level. Federally no.

That is what state municipal and state elections are for. The Federal isn't suppose have as much power as in does. According to the Constitution Federal elections are second to State election. State election were suppose to have a much greater effect.

That is why states like California and New York have more electoral votes.

If you agree the democracy is flawed why not join me in supporting reform?

How did you get that from what I said? Let me repeat
Not a Democracy, We are a Constitutional Republic

The system is fundamentally flawed. Simple as that. It allows candidates with a smaller proportion of the vote to win. That's undemocratic and in my opinion unfair.

Are you saying you support undemocratic electoral systems where people with a smaller proportion of the vote can be called the winner?

Look at the margins in the states. I'd argue this election each and every state and each and every vote had more weight meaning than they usually do. I think you don't like the outcome is the issue.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:20:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:13:01 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:00:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:53:25 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:46:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

In my opinion everyone's vote should be equally important in determining the result. Democracy is flawed if some votes are of more value than others.

Each person's vote IS equal, 100%. Population of state is what changes the number of electoral votes each state holds.

False. The nature of demographics leads to certain states coming in with huge majorities and while others have slim majorities. This allows candidates to win with a series of narrow wins in individual target states while potentially completely ignoring other states and facing huge defeats. Such a system is fundamentally flawed and in my opinion has the potential to be extremely divisive.

270 of 538 to clinch the white house. This is a majority of state based votes.

"Such a system is fundamentally flawed and in my opinion has the potential to be extremely divisive."
^ This is exactly what occurs in a Democracy.

At least in a proper democracy everyone has an equal vote. The electoral college system values the votes of people in certain states far more than others. It allows a candidate to hypothetically campaign only in half of states and secure narrow wins while facing massive defeats in other areas, potentially losing the popular vote by large margins.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:22:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 6:54:17 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:44:21 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

What does any one particular "state" matter in that regard then?

What do you mean?

Well, you referred to "smaller states" that would be disenfranchised. But in a popular vote, the size of the state is irrelevant, as its the population of the entire nation that is voting. The size of the state and the people in the state wouldn't matter, provided all votes were counted equally, and NOT put under a further representative vote like the electoral college accounts for.

IE Trump could win Florida by 1 vote, and get 29 electoral votes. (so, 50% wants Trump and 49.999999% want HC)

Hillary could win Rhode Island with ALL votes of its residents, but still only get 4 electoral votes despite a 100% turnout for her.

At the very least, each state needs to break its electoral college up to more equitably represent the votes cast in its state.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:25:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:15:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:07:58 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:48:03 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:44:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

Yes Democratic at the municipal and state level. Federally no.

That is what state municipal and state elections are for. The Federal isn't suppose have as much power as in does. According to the Constitution Federal elections are second to State election. State election were suppose to have a much greater effect.

That is why states like California and New York have more electoral votes.

If you agree the democracy is flawed why not join me in supporting reform?

How did you get that from what I said? Let me repeat
Not a Democracy, We are a Constitutional Republic

The system is fundamentally flawed. Simple as that. It allows candidates with a smaller proportion of the vote to win. That's undemocratic and in my opinion unfair.

I honestly think is way above you head. You clearly have no idea how the US political system is designed. Democracy always dissolves into mob rule.

Are you saying you support undemocratic electoral systems where people with a smaller proportion of the vote can be called the winner?

The electoral college is for one branch of government, eh indirectly two. The executive branch is not that powerful. The balance of power is the legislative branch which is democratically elected.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:29:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:18:56 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:15:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:07:58 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:48:03 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:44:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

Yes Democratic at the municipal and state level. Federally no.

That is what state municipal and state elections are for. The Federal isn't suppose have as much power as in does. According to the Constitution Federal elections are second to State election. State election were suppose to have a much greater effect.

That is why states like California and New York have more electoral votes.

If you agree the democracy is flawed why not join me in supporting reform?

How did you get that from what I said? Let me repeat
Not a Democracy, We are a Constitutional Republic

The system is fundamentally flawed. Simple as that. It allows candidates with a smaller proportion of the vote to win. That's undemocratic and in my opinion unfair.

Are you saying you support undemocratic electoral systems where people with a smaller proportion of the vote can be called the winner?

Look at the margins in the states. I'd argue this election each and every state and each and every vote had more weight meaning than they usually do. I think you don't like the outcome is the issue.

Sure, of course New York and Alaska were super close contests no one could predict. Its a nonsensical argument to defend a flawed system by claiming its fundamental flaws were less unfair than normal. There is simply no defense for any type of unfairness.

Actually I've talked about this issue before, I made a thread about it during the primaries.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:34:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
If the electoral college was entirely proportionally representative, it wouldn't be as much of a problem (though it would be redundant, and the issue of undemocratic faithless electors would remain). The key issue here is whether states or people should have ultimate authority in electing our government; I think it is manifestly obvious that the people are the most credible basis for democracy.

#EndtheEC
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:35:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:25:37 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:15:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:07:58 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:48:03 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:44:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

Yes Democratic at the municipal and state level. Federally no.

That is what state municipal and state elections are for. The Federal isn't suppose have as much power as in does. According to the Constitution Federal elections are second to State election. State election were suppose to have a much greater effect.

That is why states like California and New York have more electoral votes.

If you agree the democracy is flawed why not join me in supporting reform?

How did you get that from what I said? Let me repeat
Not a Democracy, We are a Constitutional Republic

The system is fundamentally flawed. Simple as that. It allows candidates with a smaller proportion of the vote to win. That's undemocratic and in my opinion unfair.

I honestly think is way above you head. You clearly have no idea how the US political system is designed. Democracy always dissolves into mob rule.

I admit i have no idea why the USA has its current electoral system. It's obvious the system is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed but it appears people seem to prefer a flawed electoral system over true straightforward democracy. I believe in true democracy and oppose systems designed to impede it.

Are you saying you support undemocratic electoral systems where people with a smaller proportion of the vote can be called the winner?

The electoral college is for one branch of government, eh indirectly two. The executive branch is not that powerful. The balance of power is the legislative branch which is democratically elected.

The simple reality is the presidency is a very powerful position and the person elected to the presidency lost the popular vote. That's a flawed undemocratic system I openly oppose.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:37:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Note that it is still imperative to accept the results of this current election; everyone just needs to come together within the next four years to admit that the EC is a piece of garbage (everyone knows it is) and fix it. If enough people on both sides push for it, it can happen. Abolishing the EC would be one of the greatest silver linings of a Trump presidency that I can think of.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:39:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:00:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:53:25 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:46:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

In my opinion everyone's vote should be equally important in determining the result. Democracy is flawed if some votes are of more value than others.

Each person's vote IS equal, 100%. Population of state is what changes the number of electoral votes each state holds.

False. The nature of demographics leads to certain states coming in with huge majorities and while others have slim majorities. This allows candidates to win with a series of narrow wins in individual target states while potentially completely ignoring other states and facing huge defeats. Such a system is fundamentally flawed and in my opinion has the potential to be extremely divisive.

Again, each person's vote is 100% equal -- population of a state changes its electoral vote count.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:40:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/9/2016 7:10:48 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:05:11 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion the USA is democratic

Then you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic. Go get a basic seventh grade education.

Irrelevant to this thread. I'm talking about how representatives are elected not how laws are passed.

How is me telling you we aren't a democracy not a relevant response to you saying we are a democracy? perhaps you should take some seventh grade english too.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:46:39 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 7:35:40 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:25:37 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:15:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:07:58 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:48:03 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:44:11 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

Yes Democratic at the municipal and state level. Federally no.

That is what state municipal and state elections are for. The Federal isn't suppose have as much power as in does. According to the Constitution Federal elections are second to State election. State election were suppose to have a much greater effect.

That is why states like California and New York have more electoral votes.

If you agree the democracy is flawed why not join me in supporting reform?

How did you get that from what I said? Let me repeat
Not a Democracy, We are a Constitutional Republic

The system is fundamentally flawed. Simple as that. It allows candidates with a smaller proportion of the vote to win. That's undemocratic and in my opinion unfair.

I honestly think is way above you head. You clearly have no idea how the US political system is designed. Democracy always dissolves into mob rule.

I admit i have no idea why the USA has its current electoral system. It's obvious the system is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed but it appears people seem to prefer a flawed electoral system over true straightforward democracy. I believe in true democracy and oppose systems designed to impede it.

51% of the population is Women, 49% Men, 60% White, 16% Latino, 13% black, 6% Asian, I don't recall the religious break down, or political ideological breakdown.

Please enlighten me as to how your democracy would pan out among such a heterogeneous population.


Are you saying you support undemocratic electoral systems where people with a smaller proportion of the vote can be called the winner?

The electoral college is for one branch of government, eh indirectly two. The executive branch is not that powerful. The balance of power is the legislative branch which is democratically elected.

The simple reality is the presidency is a very powerful position and the person elected to the presidency lost the popular vote. That's a flawed undemocratic system I openly oppose.

The presidency is not a powerful position. The legislature is far more important and is democratically elected.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:47:22 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 7:22:59 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:54:17 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:44:21 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

What does any one particular "state" matter in that regard then?

What do you mean?

Well, you referred to "smaller states" that would be disenfranchised. But in a popular vote, the size of the state is irrelevant, as its the population of the entire nation that is voting. The size of the state and the people in the state wouldn't matter, provided all votes were counted equally, and NOT put under a further representative vote like the electoral college accounts for.


You are forgetting that each state is its own sovereign territory, able to govern itself and protect itself through its national guard. America is a collection of nation states just as the E.U. member states. Removing that status from the states would destroy who and what the U.S.A. is.

IE Trump could win Florida by 1 vote, and get 29 electoral votes. (so, 50% wants Trump and 49.999999% want HC)


Correct.

Hillary could win Rhode Island with ALL votes of its residents, but still only get 4 electoral votes despite a 100% turnout for her.


Correct. Again, these are separate nation states which have agreed to work as one larger unit while still holding their sovereignty and independence from one another.

At the very least, each state needs to break its electoral college up to more equitably represent the votes cast in its state.

And each state has this ability if they wish to do so. For example, I believe it is New Hampshire who hands out 3 electoral votes, then its 2nd congressional district awards its own 1 electoral vote.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:47:35 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 7:39:33 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 7:00:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:53:25 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:46:28 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:39:49 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:36:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:30:53 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote yet Donald Trump is president elect. In my opinion it's illogical that a democracy can allow a system where a presidential contest can be determined by an electoral college system that places huge value on votes from people in states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio but people in places like California and Alaska might as well not bother voting as the result in their state is a virtual certainty.

Using a simple system where the person with the most votes becomes president is not only fairer in terms of ensuring the right person wins but also ensures presidential candidates make their case to the whole country, not a few swing states.

We don't live in a democracy. How many times does this need to be said before it sticks?

Democracies DO NOT WORK period
I would still be in chains if we lived in a democracy.
The Electoral College ensures the candidates pander on a national scale. I am sure you are against New York and California deciding the presidential election.

In my opinion the USA is democratic even if in my opinion it's a flawed one.

I would be happy to see elections decided my the person with the most votes winning. I would have absolutely no problem with highly populated areas having an equal say in determining the winner as opposed to being discriminated against as they are currently.

If you take away the electoral colleges and instead run by popular vote, you disenfranchise smaller states in the union. This is TRUE disenfranchisement.

In my opinion everyone's vote should be equally important in determining the result. Democracy is flawed if some votes are of more value than others.

Each person's vote IS equal, 100%. Population of state is what changes the number of electoral votes each state holds.

False. The nature of demographics leads to certain states coming in with huge majorities and while others have slim majorities. This allows candidates to win with a series of narrow wins in individual target states while potentially completely ignoring other states and facing huge defeats. Such a system is fundamentally flawed and in my opinion has the potential to be extremely divisive.

Again, each person's vote is 100% equal -- population of a state changes its electoral vote count.

Wrong. North Dakota voting figures:

Trump 216,133 votes 64.1%

Clinton 93,526 votes 27.8%

Others 27,309 votes 8.1%

Vermont voting figures:

Clinton 178,075 votes 61.1%

Trump 95,027 votes 32.6%

Others 18,170 votes 6.2%

Both states have 3 electoral college votes each despite more people voting in North Dakota. This proves I'm right and not all votes are 100% equal as votes are more valuable in Vermont than North Dakota.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:50:56 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 7:37:43 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Note that it is still imperative to accept the results of this current election; everyone just needs to come together within the next four years to admit that the EC is a piece of garbage (everyone knows it is) and fix it. If enough people on both sides push for it, it can happen. Abolishing the EC would be one of the greatest silver linings of a Trump presidency that I can think of.

The EC is specific for one position in the Fed. The president is at the mercy of the legislature always, or should be. Abolishing the EC is idiotic. If you want to have bigger part in electing our figurehead move to a state with more electoral votes.