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 (1/30/2013 10:48:05 AM)
And it is a racist institution, and it serves no purpose. When was our last 40 acres and a mule guy elected president?

kdsub -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 10:56:17 AM)
Ron what difference does it make where a politician comes from... it is what he represents to get elected. Butch

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 11:19:04 AM)
OK, and again, what the fuck is the electoral college have to do with it? The popular vote should get him elected (by what he represents, as the most good to the most people)

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 11:30:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And it is a racist institution, and it serves no purpose. When was our last 40 acres and a mule guy elected president? Yes, it WAS a racist institution but it does serve some purpose. As Butch points out it gives the small states a bit of a voice. And it would be hell if we were depending on the popular vote and had to recount the fucking chads nationwide. [:D]

kdsub -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 11:41:46 AM)
Ron this is not exactly true...first should what is good for say 55 percent of the population that occupies say 10 percent of the land be more important than what may not be so good for 45 percent of the population that occupies 90 percent of the land? Sometimes yes but often no. For the sake of equal representation there must be a way to allow a reasonable equalization of representation of needs or our UNION may not stand. I am not sure of the percents I posted above but they are just for a reasonable example. There have been elections in the past where the electoral college has served this purpose…intended or not. But I’ll admit it has been rare but also it is rare that the college does not represent the popular vote. No more arguing for me… I think I’m right but would not stake my life on it. Butch

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 12:09:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And it is a racist institution, and it serves no purpose. When was our last 40 acres and a mule guy elected president? Yes, it WAS a racist institution but it does serve some purpose. As Butch points out it gives the small states a bit of a voice. And it would be hell if we were depending on the popular vote and had to recount the fucking chads nationwide. [:D] Yeah, do a side by side comparison, and tell me how that shit works out, cuz .0001% or .01% or .1% or 1% or 2% gives what voice? or what bit of it? Enough to get 1 electoral vote from nothing, and everyone knows that great amounts of blood sweat and tears are poured into North Dakota personally by the campaigns to grab that whoppin motherfucker. But if they were 700,000 raw votes..............

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 1:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And it is a racist institution, and it serves no purpose. When was our last 40 acres and a mule guy elected president? Yes, it WAS a racist institution but it does serve some purpose. As Butch points out it gives the small states a bit of a voice. And it would be hell if we were depending on the popular vote and had to recount the fucking chads nationwide. [:D] Yeah, do a side by side comparison, and tell me how that shit works out, cuz .0001% or .01% or .1% or 1% or 2% gives what voice? or what bit of it? Enough to get 1 electoral vote from nothing, and everyone knows that great amounts of blood sweat and tears are poured into North Dakota personally by the campaigns to grab that whoppin motherfucker. But if they were 700,000 raw votes.............. Imagine multiple political parties with recount petitions or lawsuits in every state. Lincoln won election with only 39.9% of the popular vote among four candidates. Can you imagine 10 candidates thinking they each have a chance to come out with a plurality? Seems kinda unwieldy a problem to me. In practicality, Ron, I can't imagine how a Constitutional Amendment would gain enough votes in both Houses and in the State Legislatures.

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/30/2013 1:54:45 PM)
Practically, neither do I. But the vote in a state even for federal office is clearly a states rights issue and the problem with the fed and electoral college clearly demonstrated in 2000. And this discourse from the teabaggers, who will make pushes into the states to change to permanantly gerrymander the electoral college, taking it further from reality is treasonous. But we can piss and moan about how hard it is, but you look at the multiparty systems across the world that do just this very thing, and many of them have more personal representation by a swatch of government (and many of them way more efficient and responsive and flourishing governments and people than our old broken down shit, based on some ancient fantasy....) Be different if the movie A Beautiful Mind was never made, we didnt ever study Monte Hall and let's make a deal gaming scenarios, and find those flaws, and we cut the nuts off of lobbiests and corporations as people which they arent...........and all sorts of yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah....

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/31/2013 10:18:05 AM)
quote: Practically, neither do I. But the vote in a state even for federal office is clearly a states rights issue and the problem with the fed and electoral college clearly demonstrated in 2000. Thinking about the issue further leads me to concede to you the righteousness of a popular vote for President notwithstanding the possible recount issues [which could probably be overcome by setting a fair percentage of vote difference in each state as a floor to initiate recount.] The EC is a throw back to the archaic compact of states banded together to form a federal government. I wrote elsewhere that that contract was broken by secession in 1860. Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg of a new burst of freedom and a government of the people not of the states. The 14th Amendment proscribed the states from denying rights and equal protection to the people. Philosophically, and to some degree in reality the structure of government was changed by those three events and we have a new contract. The states rights people are clinging to an issue that was resolved then. We are one government of people not of states. But the states' rights flag is still being waived as archaic and impractical as it is. Sadly, I can't imagine anyway to discard the EC, no matter how much we bitch about it. [:-]

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/31/2013 10:36:08 AM)
And as we see today, the unreasonable demands of these regions still exist, and they feel rightfully so, as you point out. It is still North against South. But all in all, it is We, the People. And that's how its gotta get to be, it is a cold, cruel world out there.... Actually, vince I think we are coming pretty close together on this issue. And have been.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/31/2013 11:37:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And it is a racist institution, and it serves no purpose. When was our last 40 acres and a mule guy elected president? Yes, it WAS a racist institution but it does serve some purpose. As Butch points out it gives the small states a bit of a voice. And it would be hell if we were depending on the popular vote and had to recount the fucking chads nationwide. [:D] Yeah, do a side by side comparison, and tell me how that shit works out, cuz .0001% or .01% or .1% or 1% or 2% gives what voice? or what bit of it? Enough to get 1 electoral vote from nothing, and everyone knows that great amounts of blood sweat and tears are poured into North Dakota personally by the campaigns to grab that whoppin motherfucker. But if they were 700,000 raw votes.............. Then that block would have been <0.56% of the number of votes in the 2012 election. Their electoral totals are worth 0.55% of the total Electoral College Vote. So, the impact North Dakota's electoral vote would have on an election would only be eclipsed by a majority vote, if all 700k votes when one way. Your "majority vote" idea just shit on N.Dak voters.

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/31/2013 11:45:33 AM)
Nope, you aint getting it. You are trying not to get it. When is the last time a party candidate has campaigned in north dakota for the one or two electoral votes? Held a town hall meeting? Gave the glimmer of a fuck about small states? http://www.iweblists.com/us/government/2012ElectoralVotesPerState.html Note that the only ones they visit are primaries. But you start considering biting off chunks of the several millions, and they will be there. Lets just do the recent election. When both candidates became endorsed candidates, excluding airport runthrus and primary states.......what states did they spend days in talking with the people of these smaller states. EARNING Votes. As I said, we know more than we did in 1784. We have monte carlo analysis, and the way it is played out, they do about 15 battleground states, and them is the squeaking wheels that get the grease, so right off, they know little of americas problems, they have little of americas actual deep down confidence and cooperation, we don't know them from fuckin Adam. Just a few states.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/31/2013 11:56:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nope, you aint getting it. You are trying not to get it. When is the last time a party candidate has campaigned in north dakota for the one or two electoral votes? Held a town hall meeting? Gave the glimmer of a fuck about small states? http://www.iweblists.com/us/government/2012ElectoralVotesPerState.html Note that the only ones they visit are primaries. But you start considering biting off chunks of the several millions, and they will be there. Lets just do the recent election. When both candidates became endorsed candidates, excluding airport runthrus and primary states.......what states did they spend days in talking with the people of these smaller states. EARNING Votes. As I said, we know more than we did in 1784. We have monte carlo analysis, and the way it is played out, they do about 15 battleground states, and them is the squeaking wheels that get the grease, so right off, they know little of americas problems, they have little of americas actual deep down confidence and cooperation, we don't know them from fuckin Adam. Just a few states. And switching to majority rule would change any of that.. how? Are you going to go on record as saying that 700k votes would have gone to Romney if he had only campaigned there and Obama didn't? Look at it this way, MN: of 700k voters, it takes 350001 voters to have a 0.55% impact on the Electoral Vote. That 350001 voting block is a mere 0.28% of the total number of voters in the 2012 election.

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/31/2013 12:14:50 PM)
What sort of fucking babble is all that? Again, what the fuck does majority rule have to do with this? Let me ask some of your stupid leading question having nothing to do with anything I have said, intimated or touched on style semantics pudpounding of you: (you are setting up straw mans here, very maladroitly, with malapropisms, I might add). Are you going to go on record as saying that 700k votes would have gone to Obama if Romney had only campaigned there and Obama didn't? Or are you saying that minority rule is spelled out in the constitution? Or are you saying that the republican are lawless thugs and goons? Or are you saying that the teabaggers in the house are committing treason? And if you are not saying that; are you saying the teabaggers in the senate are? Uh, Romney won north dakota, btw. Neither candidate having stepped foot in the state.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/31/2013 1:32:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What sort of fucking babble is all that? Again, what the fuck does majority rule have to do with this? Isn't that your solution? quote: Let me ask some of your stupid leading question having nothing to do with anything I have said, intimated or touched on style semantics pudpounding of you: (you are setting up straw mans here, very maladroitly, with malapropisms, I might add). Snore. More babbling. quote: Are you going to go on record as saying that 700k votes would have gone to Obama if Romney had only campaigned there and Obama didn't? Poor attempt to switch the question out. And, your question has nothing to do with my support of the EC system. But, do go on. quote: Or are you saying that minority rule is spelled out in the constitution? Considering we don't have minority rule, and the occurrence of the EC System not lining up with the popular vote are not the norm, this is a stupid question. quote: Or are you saying that the republican are lawless thugs and goons? Absolutely! Oh. Oops. I thought you said Union bosses. My bad. [8D] Nope. I'm sure some are, as you can probably find any type of person in every group to some extent. quote: Or are you saying that the teabaggers in the house are committing treason? Nope. quote: And if you are not saying that; are you saying the teabaggers in the senate are? Nope. And, I want to make it explicitly clear that I don't know any of the sexual actions preferred by, or engaged by, any Senator or Representative, and prefer to keep it that way. But, your omniscience into which ones partake in "teabagging" - while odd that you would know of those things - begs the question, "which Sen's/Rep's engage in teabagging? quote: Uh, Romney won north dakota, btw. Neither candidate having stepped foot in the state. Doesn't matter who won or lost in N.Dak in 2012. Geez. Your questions were awful easy to honestly answer.

mnottertail -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/31/2013 1:40:52 PM)
Yeah, I didn't think you would answer your own brand of asswipe. I knew you weren't as fucking stupid as you are trying to make me believe you are with your constant baiting. But you have been caught in your pretense now.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125