RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules

RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 8:36:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You fuckin Sie A it is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/true?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority If only 50% of all voting age Citizens vote, then the most anyone can get is actually 50% of the voting age citizens. 50% is not a majority. 50%+1 of those that cast a ballot may not actually result in a total that eclipses 50% of all those of voting age. And, since that mark wasn't passed, there is no way that the majority of the people elected that person. And that is nothing and even less than nothing. A majority of those who voted (because those who didnt vote also voted). As I pointed out; it is a true majority. Candidate Dipshit 47% of the vote. Candidate Fuckstick 40% of the vote. Candidate Shitforbrains 13% of the vote. Say hello to President Dipshit, winner by true majority.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 10:22:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You fuckin Sie A it is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/true?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority If only 50% of all voting age Citizens vote, then the most anyone can get is actually 50% of the voting age citizens. 50% is not a majority. 50%+1 of those that cast a ballot may not actually result in a total that eclipses 50% of all those of voting age. And, since that mark wasn't passed, there is no way that the majority of the people elected that person. And that is nothing and even less than nothing. A majority of those who voted (because those who didnt vote also voted). As I pointed out; it is a true majority. Candidate Dipshit 47% of the vote. Candidate Fuckstick 40% of the vote. Candidate Shitforbrains 13% of the vote. Say hello to President Dipshit, winner by true majority. Not by your statement of who voted. Using 2012 election numbers, 57.5% of the voting age population actually voted. Obama garnered 65.9M votes to Romney's 60.9M, or 52.0% 52% of 57.5% is only 29.9% of the voting age population. Last time I checked, 29.9% isn't larger than 70.1% (the number voting for other candidates + the number you have stated voted by not voting). Effectively, we are running under the will of the 30%.

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 10:42:26 AM)
which is still a true majority. I didn't vote for president, which WAS my vote. You are arguing about meaningless bullshit. He was elected by the electoral college, an artifact of racist america, and would have been elected by popular vote. I see no reason to revoke american freedom of choice and force them to vote who do not want to, because it is a vote. We need to amend the constitution and go popular vote, and I have said in detail why, some of those reasons to expand the electoral process, by quitting the monte carlo gaming of a few battleground states, and bringing that election to more people, and so on. I will not recount it again and again, and write the same thing over and over, just because teabaggers don't have the capacity to remember from day to day. As they make their same tired bullshit worn out red herring and lying arguments.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 12:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail which is still a true majority. I didn't vote for president, which WAS my vote. You are arguing about meaningless bullshit. He was elected by the electoral college, an artifact of racist america, and would have been elected by popular vote. I see no reason to revoke american freedom of choice and force them to vote who do not want to, because it is a vote. We need to amend the constitution and go popular vote, and I have said in detail why, some of those reasons to expand the electoral process, by quitting the monte carlo gaming of a few battleground states, and bringing that election to more people, and so on. I will not recount it again and again, and write the same thing over and over, just because teabaggers don't have the capacity to remember from day to day. As they make their same tired bullshit worn out red herring and lying arguments. You also forgot that because you would rather have tyranny of the majority over the minority and those who don't vote their opinion. That's a big one. If you look at a spreadsheet of the election stats, you'll find that the top 36 States/Districts decided the popular vote, leaving 15 to go through the motions. After the state with the 36th highest total votes, Obama had won a higher percentage of popular votes than Romney would win after all 51 were counted. By your definition, almost 30% of the States don't matter. Thank God every vote counts, right?

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 12:44:54 PM)
I dont know why you are trying to put that asswipe in my mouth, particularly when I am arguing against it. No, your vote doesn't matter, the monte carlo gaming of the electoral college does. Now if the teabagger in Romney wouldn't have bought into that dried up old shit that private business is more efficient than government Ayn Rand simpletonian asswipe, and corralled those egg headed high paid good for nothings to tell him stupid shit about how he was slaughtering the election numbers, he might have garnered enough votes to be elected dog catcher. We need the popular vote.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 12:53:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I dont know why you are trying to put that asswipe in my mouth, particularly when I am arguing against it. No, your vote doesn't matter, the monte carlo gaming of the electoral college does. Now if the teabagger in Romney wouldn't have bought into that dried up old shit that private business is more efficient than government Ayn Rand simpletonian asswipe, and corralled those egg headed high paid good for nothings to tell him stupid shit about how he was slaughtering the election numbers, he might have garnered enough votes to be elected dog catcher. We need the popular vote. It takes more than 60.9M votes to be elected dog catcher?!?!?!?!? Holy fuck! I know there was a conspiracy behind all those goofy numbers the Republican talking heads were spewing. I think the Ood are looking to take over...

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 12:56:18 PM)
Well, why don't you tell me? Is the fuckin assclown an elected dogcatcher or not? maladroit malapropisms are not useful here, popular vote is needed.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 1:55:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, why don't you tell me? Is the fuckin assclown an elected dogcatcher or not? maladroit malapropisms are not useful here, popular vote is needed. where was I bumbling in my word use?

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 2:07:34 PM)
see every post beginning with true majority and continuously and dishonestly straw-manning my positions if not outright fallacies of presumption and relevance.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/29/2013 8:41:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail see every post beginning with true majority and continuously and dishonestly straw-manning my positions if not outright fallacies of presumption and relevance. "straw-manning" your position?!? LMAO!!! You called for a popular vote. I countered with 50%+1 of the voting age Citizenry.

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 9:08:26 AM)
You also forgot that because you would rather have tyranny of the majority over the minority and those who don't vote their opinion. That's a big one. Try that one out, scooter. By your definition, almost 30% of the States don't matter. Thank God every vote counts, right? Give this one a lookie see, sport. And your counter does not bring anything to the table. What does it solve, what purpose does it serve. The local state and federal are elected by popular vote, and the president should be as well.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 9:12:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You also forgot that because you would rather have tyranny of the majority over the minority and those who don't vote their opinion. That's a big one. Try that one out, scooter. By your definition, almost 30% of the States don't matter. Thank God every vote counts, right? Give this one a lookie see, sport. And your counter does not bring anything to the table. What does it solve, what purpose does it serve. The local state and federal are elected by popular vote, and the president should be as well. The local and State officials are also a shitload closer to me than the President ever will, as far as governing goes. If we went simply by majority rule, you'd have a Federal Government that is catered to the two coasts, fly-over country be damned.

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 9:23:11 AM)
And the electoral college changes that how? 50% +1 of all voters changes that how? And we are run by majority rule, now; today. With the exception of where we are ruled by the majority of money and lobbying effort.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 9:36:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And the electoral college changes that how? 50% +1 of all voters changes that how? And we are run by majority rule, now; today. With the exception of where we are ruled by the majority of money and lobbying effort. Majority rule changes being ruled by the majority of money and lobbying, how? Are you thinking that those on the Left (who have won the majority in 5 of the last 6 elections) would somehow not be bought and paid for? Obama said he was going to get the lobbyists out of Washington. He did a bit of that, but not much. What little he did, was done by hiring them on, forcing them to no longer be registered as lobbyists.

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 9:41:56 AM)
I am thinking AAPCA lobbied to death by insurance, NRA lobbying stupid shit all day long every day, drug industry lobby, corporate lobby.... Look, if you don't understand how anything works, why don't you read up on it? And answer my question, what does your way provide that poular vote does not.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 9:47:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am thinking AAPCA lobbied to death by insurance, NRA lobbying stupid shit all day long every day, drug industry lobby, corporate lobby.... Look, if you don't understand how anything works, why don't you read up on it? And answer my question, what does your way provide that poular vote does not. More meaning to our votes. The largest states still have a greater representation, but it's not a direct correlation (every state has only 2 senators, regardless of population). At least in that area, the smaller states have a little bit more power. How would majority rule prevent lobbyists and money from corrupting Washington?

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 10:02:31 AM)
It wouldnt change lobbying. That would require a constitutional amendment now. Why would you think it would? Popular votes would give more meaning to our votes.

kdsub -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 10:07:13 AM)
I personally think a simple majority vote for the Presidency could be a mistake. I understand your take on the electoral college Ron but I think there is a very important reason for the process. I don’t know if this reason is the original intent of the electoral college but it serves its purpose. I believe the way the process is set up tries to balance concentrated populations centers with vast land areas with fewer residences. If it were always the simple majority all Presidents would be elected by the residents of urban areas…completely ignoring vast areas of the country with rural populations. This over time could lead to alienation of parts of our country leading perhaps to break up of the union. I personally think our forefathers had this very though in their minds when they invented the electoral college. If you look, for instance, at a map of political breakdown by party a lot of the Republican support is in states with huge land area a fewer people. If a simple majority were used these states would never have a president representing their political views. This would be a path to revolution in my opinion. Butch

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 10:21:19 AM)
The entire reason it did that was because at the time there was only taxation was poll tax (tax per head, or direct taxation), for that taxation you were given representation. The south at that time was agrarian and sparsely populated, while the north was the big cites and industrial. They would clearly eat up the south in all matters iff (iff means if and only if) there was no leveling. The south did not want the slaves taxed, but they wanted them counted in representation. Everyone also did the same with indians, women were nothing to nobody. That is how the gerrymandering of the house of representatives came about and the electoral college (a shadow of the house). The cobbling of the people. The senate was a regarless of anything else a advocate of the state, on equal footing one with another. Some of the side arguments were that oh, with the speed of the communication at the time and so on and so forth a popular vote would take forever..... Well, smaller world, blacks, indians and women can vote...there is no need for a electoral college, like all other offices it should be popular vote. I find the argument that presidents would be elected from urban areas. First of all, I am trying to consider the last time we had a president from Goodridge Minnesota, or one from Ypsilanti Michigan, or Biloxi Mississipi. Help me out. And the prima facie ignorance of considering that the city of New York would elect a president because (all New York City thinks en masse) and would withstand the rest of the country in some favorite son scenario is frnkly, ludicrous. The urban (and at this point we are pretty much overwhelmingly urban across this nation.....) boogeyman is a red herring. Wasn't then, is now. It hinders us.

kdsub -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 10:37:00 AM)
Ron I believe the vast majority of urban populations represent the majority of the population of the United States. I also believe that their needs will most always differ from rural populations needs. In this age of voter preferences urban areas often tend to vote more to the Democratic side and rural to the Republican side. It would make no difference if the parties had different names the needs on the majority of issues will be different between the two. Because there is a minimum of electoral votes despite the population …states with small populations can still have a big impact on national elections. They would not without the electoral college. To me at least it makes no difference the reason the system was thought up…it works to help keep this vast nation together. Butch

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875