RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College

RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (Full Version)

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

Message

Greta75 -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/10/2016 2:08:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system Sometimes I feel like you are the one with reading comprehension and interpretation problems. This is exactly what I said. It's not a two party system. Your people could have voted for anybody else but CHOSE not to. The KEY is, you have FULL FREEDOM to vote for other parties beyond these two parties. But EVERYBODY chose not to. Only 5% chose to vote other parties. Which is not enough. To me to say you have a two party system is implying that you only have CHOICE to vote 2 parties which is totally untrue. Americans have broad choices! They refuse to support all the other parties. And that is by their own CHOICE. That's the problem! in the United States, Jamaica, and Malta, the sense of two party system describes an arrangement in which all or nearly all elected officials belong to one of the only two major parties, and third parties rarely win any seats in the legislature.

heavyblinker -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/10/2016 2:11:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system Sometimes I feel like you are the one with reading comprehension and interpretation problems. This is exactly what I said. It's not a two party system. Your people could have voted for anybody else but CHOSE not to. The KEY is, you have FULL FREEDOM to vote for other parties beyond these two parties. But EVERYBODY chose not to. Only 5% chose to vote other parties. Which is not enough. in the United States, Jamaica, and Malta, the sense of two party system describes an arrangement in which all or nearly all elected officials belong to one of the only two major parties, and third parties rarely win any seats in the legislature. I am just going to ask you to read what you quoted one more time. If you still don't know why I shared that link, then I'm just going to give up.

Greta75 -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/10/2016 2:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker I am just going to ask you to read what you quoted one more time. If you still don't know why I shared that link, then I'm just going to give up. My quote says often 2 parties are elected BECAUSE nobody bothers voting for third parties which is precisely what I said.

Termyn8or -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/10/2016 2:47:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or All this electoral college shit is because of the nature of the country.. States used to be considered damnear countries in the past so that is how it is set up. In fact there was a tie when you did not vote for senators, your state legislature would appoint them. You did however vote directly for members of the house. Personally, I think that's the way is should be. The People's house is the House of Representative. The Senate is the States' house. The way it is now deprives our state governments of representation in Congress. If I recall correctly, there were issues with Governors appointing crony Senators. A reasonable objection. Better then to have them elected by the state legislature; or maybe having one appointed and one elected would strike a fairer balance. But leaving the State governments with no representation at all was a step too far in my opinion. K. Not so sure I agree. Interesting. So you vote for your state house/congress/whatever and they appoint your senator who has at this point in time quite a bit more than your house rep. Seems like they expected large population changes, which would actually be logical back then. Go west young Man. Haven't you been told, California is full of whiskey, Women and gold. But back then, you got so many house reps per capita and maybe per capita wasn't so much. So the house had alot more power. Now the senate has ore power and maybe you don't want your state to just appoint them. Of course that was the thinking of those who put through the amendment that changed that. For better or worse ? Well we really cannot do a double blind study on it so there will ever be proof one way or the other. And what difference did it make ? At this stage of the game they are all owned by the lobbyists. Legal bribery, I wonder if any other countries allow that. Anyway, what I saw was that Trump won by about six million actual votes. Now I look it up and he lost by a few hundred thousand. Not saying it is right but this system DID keep Hillary Clinton out of that office. And if more people voted those bought and paid for establishment politicians would ot be winning so much. In fact if the candidates were REALLY selected by the People we would not have this vote against the other, rather than vote FOR someone. These parties got to go. They think they run the place and now it bit them in the ass. And THAT is what the people who voted Trump believe. Fuck the political parties. We are sick of it. We get fucked over and over, and even worse by "free" trade which DOES NOT mean "fair" trade. I can provide examples. He represents real change, for better or worse, but people are fucking sick of the same old. Now we see what happens. And if the assassinate him they are in for some real shit from about 59 million people. You think the US military can kill that many ? Well first they have to call them all back because very few of them are in the US. By the time they get here they won't have a base to which to report. We are getting less scared of them by the minute, especially considering Iraq. Welcomed as liberators my ass. Tell you something, you do not need a machine gun. They waste ammo. Learn to aim. They will mow you all down but if they are not within like 15 feet they are likely to miss you or at least not kill you. Machine guns are for battle when the enemy is across something and there are a bunch of them huddled up in a hole somewhere or whatever. In a normal situation (normal ?) you put it on semi-auto and shoot one at a time. If you cannot aim, you really should not be shooting a machine gun. How did we get here ? Oh yeah, how to remove people from office. I do ot believe we have to remove Trump. I think he is going to have some talks with advisers n shit and just concentrate on a few things. At least I hope so. Fuck the wall, just change the rules for the border patrol that already exists. No Muslim immigrants ? OK fine. And stop bombing them, and Putin might convince him of that. STOP MAKING ENEMIES. But up till now I did not realize he lost the vote count. (yesterday they said he was ahead on that) But also when it is that close that this can happen you see that people are not happy with the status quo. You cannot rig an election that is 80/20 or 75/25. It is the close ones that can be rigged. Well, we have a democrat regime right now so if there was any rigging it was for their side which means he probably won by more of a margin than was posted. Enough. Trump is President as of January. The liberals are going to have to deal with that. If he can really do anything then there will be more jobs and more prosperity for the US People. If not we continue to go down the tubes. We would have with Clinton for sure. I wonder if Bill is comforting her and cuddling with her right now. I bet not. A marriage of convenience, always. T^T

Bhruic -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/10/2016 2:59:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Charles6682 The Popular Vote represents the true winner. One person, one vote. Whoever gets the most votes, wins. Its that simple. Focus on the phrase, "united states". Meditate on it. Break it down: "united" + "states". The popular vote in each of the states determines who wins that state's Electors. Why would you think it shouldn't? K. In a state that is solidly red, or a state that is solidly blue, if you belong to the other party your vote is never counted under the present electoral system. But the idea of one person, one vote doesn't really work either. Under that system a few of the largest cities around the country would control the vote. More rural places would have very little say. That sounds like it would be unfair, the way you present it... large cities controlling the vote. But really all you are doing when you say rural vs. cities is talking about population density. The largest cities can have as much diversity of opinion as rural areas. Proportional representation is still the purest form of Democracy.

Marc2b -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/10/2016 4:16:07 AM)
I am not yet convinced that doing away with the electoral collage (although I am open to arguments). My main concern is that going to a popular vote essentially hands control of the Presidency over to the large cities. A candidate would only have to focus on NYC, LA, Chicago and a few others and could safely ignore rural America. Under the current system rural America has to be paid attention to. Of course, it was largely rural America that voted for President Elect Shithead so . . . like I said . . . I'm open to arguments.

Termyn8or -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/12/2016 8:50:25 PM)
It has been speculated that if it was a direct election then more Trump supporters may have voted in the blue states. I agree. T^T

BamaD -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/12/2016 9:24:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or It has been speculated that if it was a direct election then more Trump supporters may have voted in the blue states. I agree. T^T If it were by popular vote we would still be recounting the 2000 election. Of course the 04 election would have put an end to that butwe would have never had a definate outcome. And wouldn't popular vote require a maority vote? Clinton never got one, neither Trump nor Clinton got the majority this time, Lincoln got 40% of the vote.

JVoV -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/12/2016 10:03:01 PM)
The electoral college is working exactly as intended. A majority of people, in a majority of states, decides the winner. From the looks of things, Trump won as many of 30 states, with 290 electoral votes, barring recounts. I'm sure he's as shocked as any of us.

tamaka -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 7:18:25 AM)
The only way the electoral college could be taken away is if we dissolve all of the states and just be one country without the state power.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 7:30:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka The only way the electoral college could be taken away is if we dissolve all of the states and just be one country without the state power. Is that such a bad thing?? Instantly avoids the confusion of which laws apply where, depending which state you're in. Completely abolishes the two-tier legal system saving billions of dollars. A simple one-man-one-vote proportional representation voting system; the one with most votes wins the pot. The police can continue chasing a villain across state boundaries because they'd have equal jurisdiction anywhere in the country. No need to abolish the states at all - just 'incorporate' them into 'America' as a single country as areas or counties rather than independent states.

bounty44 -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 7:58:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV The electoral college is working exactly as intended. A majority of people, in a majority of states, decides the winner. From the looks of things, Trump won as many of 30 states, with 290 electoral votes, barring recounts. I'm sure he's as shocked as any of us. do you know---when he walked out at 3 AM to give his victory speech, I confess I interpreted his facial expression as "uh-oh, damn I actually won!" as if the whole game he had been playing suddenly backfired on him.

Nnanji -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 9:14:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or It has been speculated that if it was a direct election then more Trump supporters may have voted in the blue states. I agree. T^T If there was a direct election Trump would have campaigned in CA, OR, WA, and NYC and picked up the couple of hundred thousand votes he needed to win a general election. He campained to win under the system an won. His results showed he would have beaten Obama in 2012. He'd have won a general election as well.

Nnanji -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 9:17:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka The only way the electoral college could be taken away is if we dissolve all of the states and just be one country without the state power. Is that such a bad thing?? Instantly avoids the confusion of which laws apply where, depending which state you're in. Completely abolishes the two-tier legal system saving billions of dollars. A simple one-man-one-vote proportional representation voting system; the one with most votes wins the pot. The police can continue chasing a villain across state boundaries because they'd have equal jurisdiction anywhere in the country. No need to abolish the states at all - just 'incorporate' them into 'America' as a single country as areas or counties rather than independent states. Yes it's a bad thing. Many parts of the country have different cultures an as states they can keep those cultures. We have English common law, French common law and Spanish common law in different parts of the country. It's no more difficult not raping, killing or stealing is a French common law state such as LA than it is in a Spanish common law state such as CA.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 9:27:09 AM)
But surely it's no different to other countries where there are distinctly different cultures conglomerated into pockets?? I see no advantage in having separate states with separate laws. In fact, there are many disadvantages in having that arrangement. Just as the world shouted down the idea of apartheid, you are advocating the same approach to the US in keeping things separate. I don't see that as a good thing at all. By all means keep your states, but they don't have to be autonomous.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 9:35:28 AM)
Polls are notoriously difficult to do nowadays - save obvious nefarious infiltration from MI5halfwits and their stooges on/in Scotland Independence referendum thingy. Your CIwaffle did not intercede/tamper suprised me alittle did that...there is no way they could have kept that secret anyhows. So we have maths and people. Pollsters to get the opinion of typically 1000 they have to call 20 000 plus on account of 19 000 telling them to fuk ofity. Those who vote are the most polarised. Extremities are the most polarised Turnip got 23% of the eligible electorate...that is all it takes for a madman to be at thy helm. Maths and apathy.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 9:42:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker I am just going to ask you to read what you quoted one more time. If you still don't know why I shared that link, then I'm just going to give up. My quote says often 2 parties are elected BECAUSE nobody bothers voting for third parties which is precisely what I said. Greta, this really is one of those times that you might want to ask one of your many friends what this means, because you clearly are not comprehending the passage. It clearly states that the US is an example of a two party system. And earlier in the article it clearly described a two party system as one where 2 parties DOMINATE the system, not one where only two parties exist.

notxofast -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 9:58:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Turnip got 23% of the eligible electorate...that is all it takes for a madman to be at thy helm. Maths and apathy. Stupidity. A lot of people felt that they had to make a point by choosing to withold their vote, their silence elected Trump.

Nnanji -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 10:02:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 But surely it's no different to other countries where there are distinctly different cultures conglomerated into pockets?? I see no advantage in having separate states with separate laws. In fact, there are many disadvantages in having that arrangement. Just as the world shouted down the idea of apartheid, you are advocating the same approach to the US in keeping things separate. I don't see that as a good thing at all. By all means keep your states, but they don't have to be autonomous. Well, we disagree. We want less central government. One size fits all never fits.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Popular Vote vs Electoral College (11/13/2016 10:26:55 AM)
I looked into matters it would appear 55% is an awesome turn out for the Americans

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875