Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BSUTOP25

If the Democrats succeed in eliminating the electoral college, I want the country to break up

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

Ding ding ding!  We have a winner. 

The problem with other states doing this is they basically become irrelevant in the election. The "swing" states that are so important and control so much right now would usually go around 50-50, so the candidates would not need to pander to those states special interests the way they do now. In short, I don't think this is going to happen.

I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns, and money
The shit has hit the fan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Washington DC should be absorbed by Virginia, with the exception of the White House & Capitol building. No need to make DC a State. 

Maryland makes more sense geographically, but Virginia would be better for democrats as it would make the state blue instead of a swing state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Washington DC should be absorbed by Virginia, with the exception of the White House & Capitol building. No need to make DC a State. 

There'd be a knock-down drag out turf war over DC between Virginia and Maryland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Maryland makes more sense geographically, but Virginia would be better for democrats as it would make the state blue instead of a swing state.

 

Just now, retrofade said:

There'd be a knock-down drag out turf war over DC between Virginia and Maryland.

I don’t care who takes the residents. But one of them needs to.  Leave the White House and Capitol as the official District. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorCalCoug said:

This country is a republic of states and not a pure democracy...  and that is by design.  People of CA are stupid.

Yeah I'd like to move it in a more democratic direction though.

 

You think people in a state are stupid so should have less power than people in smart states. That sounds pretty authoritarian 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

It's a stupid boutique issue that isn't actually going to change anything, and will only serve to galvanize support on the opposite side. It's absolutely stupid for them to be making such a big deal about this, especially since it would take a Constitutional Amendment for it to change, which is a non-starter. 

I personally think that the states should all switch to the method that Maine and Nebraska use --- two to the popular vote winner in the state, and the rest by Congressional district.

That leaves concerns with gerrymandering though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

How dare anyone suggest separation of powers, checks and balances, and constraints on government are a good thing. 

 

Those things can still exist without The EC

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sebasour said:

That leaves concerns with gerrymandering though

Which is why we need a voting rights act that addresses gerrymandering in a meaningful and effective way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sebasour said:

How dare the people of California demand that their votes be counted equally to those in Wyoming 

 

California has 55 Electoral votes to Wyoming's 3. Tell me again how California's votes aren't equal to Wyoming's....

This is nothing more than a Commie ploy to do an end run around the Constitution. The Commies know there is no way in hell they can get an amendment passed to do away with the Electoral College. They're not even attempting to hide their hate for the Constitution anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sean327 said:

California has 55 Electoral votes to Wyoming's 3. Tell me again how California's votes aren't equal to Wyoming's....

578k people / 3 electoral votes = 1 vote per 193K people

39.6 million people / 55 electoral votes = 1 vote per 719k people

Wyoming's votes are worth almost 4x what a California vote is in presidential elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bsu_alum9 said:

578k people / 3 electoral votes = 1 vote per 193K people

39.6 million people / 55 electoral votes = 1 vote per 719k people

Wyoming's votes are worth almost 4x what a California vote is in presidential elections.

That is the way the system was set up! What about that do you Commie clowns not get? The Founders understood what would happen when a handful of states became the population centers of the country. Don't like the EC? Propose a Constitutional amendment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, sebasour said:

Yeah I'd like to move it in a more democratic direction though.

 

You think people in a state are stupid so should have less power than people in smart states. That sounds pretty authoritarian 

The founding fathers didn’t want a majority democracy for a reason.

Thinking people are stupid is not authoritarian.  😂 

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Commie clowns 

case in point.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akkula said:

I don't really have a problem with the electoral college as it reflects the federal system.  The problem is we have given too much power to the president.  There seems to be a lot of silliness going on with some of these Democratic candidates right now.  

What these people should be talking about is getting rid of the unconstitutional legislative filibuster and adding DC and Puerto Rico as states the next time they have a chance.  Instead they are talking about silliness that will likely never take place at the federal level simply because people don't know any better.

Gave you a cheers reaction...  for once we agree on something. 

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

case in point.

Prove otherwise! You and your comrades have zero respect for the Constitution and our founding principles. We are not a phucking Democracy, we are a Representative Republic. If you don't like that you can either move the phuck out, or work within the system and get the Constitution amended.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sean327 said:

You and your comrades have zero respect for conservative ideas and our founding principles. We are not phucking liberals, we are conservatives. If you don't like that you can either move the phuck out, or work within the system and get the Constitution amended.

 

Prove what? All I said was that this debate is about ideology, not about governance. You are proving that for me. Which is fine - my point is we should all stop, admit this, and then start yelling at each other again but do so within that framework. It would look something like the above, which I fixed for you, and it would be a more honest debate.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

578k people / 3 electoral votes = 1 vote per 193K people

39.6 million people / 55 electoral votes = 1 vote per 719k people

Wyoming's votes are worth almost 4x what a California vote is in presidential elections.

There’s an easy work around.  Expand the number of representatives in the house from 435 to 1,200 or so.  That’ll give California more electoral votes while Wyoming may only pick up an additional vote.  

And why do Dems like to pick on Wyoming?  Why don’t you ever pick on a low population blue state like Vermont, Delaware or Rhode Island? 

A person in Delaware has 2x the power of a Californian. A person in Rhode Island has 2.75 x the power of a Californian.  Vermont has 60k more people than Wyoming and has the same number of electoral votes and they have 3x the power in a presidential election.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, sean327 said:

That is the way the system was set up! What about that do you Commie clowns not get? The Founders understood what would happen when a handful of states became the population centers of the country. Don't like the EC? Propose a Constitutional amendment. 

No, this isn't how "the system was set up"!

It was changed in the early 20th century with the Apportionment Act of 1911.

Originally:

To give effect to the requirements of Article One, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution and Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment that United States representatives be apportioned to the states in proportion to their respective populations, Congress would pass Apportionment Act following each Census, starting with the Apportionment Act of 1792.[2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

Prove what? All I said was that this debate is about ideology, not about governance. You are proving that for me. Which is fine - my point is we should all stop, admit this, and then start yelling at each other again but do so within that framework. It would look something like the above, which I fixed for you, and it would be a more honest debate.

You're kidding right? Please tell me you are because that so called fify you pulled was complete bullshit. In your demented little mind standing up for the Constitution, all of it, not just the parts you like falls along ideological lines? GTFOH with that crap. Like it or not the Founders saw fit to set up the Electoral College system, and they had good reasons for it. The only ones bringing ideology into this are those that want to change the system by pulling an end run around the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

Prove what? All I said was that this debate is about ideology, not about governance. You are proving that for me. Which is fine - my point is we should all stop, admit this, and then start yelling at each other again but do so within that framework. It would look something like the above, which I fixed for you, and it would be a more honest debate.

I'm a Libertarian not a conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...