RE: Electoral College 101

RE: Electoral College 101 (Full Version)

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

Message

tamaka -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/1/2017 10:22:37 PM)
1. Your vote doesn't count more than theirs. Their state gets more electoral votes than yours does. So their vote actually counts more than yours. 2. Cities are where the mass of the people live so in that way they have a lot to do with the EC which assigns number of votes based on population.

BamaD -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 1:58:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne so cities alone cant choose the president and dictate policy for the rest of us [img]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stufff/Whyitsimportant_ea0b86_6085851.jpg[/img] 1) if I lived in the gray zones, and the blue zones voted opposite of me, I would recognize and respect that those blue zone people are Americans too, and my vote should not count any more than theirs, JUST because I live in a rural area. 2) I am not sure why you are babbling about cities. They have NOTHING to do with the Electoral College. That is the problem, the reason for the EC is so that a small densly populated part of the country couldn't rule the nation.

BamaD -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 2:20:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You want all rights restored automatically. What in the world makes you think that they would vote for anyone who would make their chosen life style more difficult? Some might not but the majority will vote for politicians in any office who will legalize what the want to do and lighten penalties to do anything else. You don't think that many people represent a danger to society by voting? Of course, people are going to vote their own personal interests! What is wrong with that? How is that a danger? Voting is how we express our views. If an ex-felon, votes to legalize an activity which is currently felonious, by all means he/she should vote! That's how democracy works! I reject your absurd notion, that a an ex-felon's exercise of his/her franchise is somehow a danger, while everyone who is NOT an ex-felon will somehow vote more... "altruistically"??? Just like they have demonstrated that they hve no business owning firearms they have demonstrated that they are simply predators who lack cincern for the community at large. Those of us who have not committed felonies, on the other had , have not demonstrated that we should not have either.

mnottertail -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 4:30:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne so cities alone cant choose the president and dictate policy for the rest of us [img]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stufff/Whyitsimportant_ea0b86_6085851.jpg[/img] 1) if I lived in the gray zones, and the blue zones voted opposite of me, I would recognize and respect that those blue zone people are Americans too, and my vote should not count any more than theirs, JUST because I live in a rural area. 2) I am not sure why you are babbling about cities. They have NOTHING to do with the Electoral College. That is the problem, the reason for the EC is so that a small densly populated part of the country couldn't rule the nation. Then explain say................Wyoming at 319% of population electors. Explain North Dakota at 295% population electors.

mnottertail -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 4:33:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka 1. Your vote doesn't count more than theirs. Their state gets more electoral votes than yours does. So their vote actually counts more than yours. 2. Cities are where the mass of the people live so in that way they have a lot to do with the EC which assigns number of votes based on population. Yeah, like wyoming and North Dakota as two prime examples. Their electoral votes are way out of line and their votes count more than ours.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 5:23:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka 1. Your vote doesn't count more than theirs. Their state gets more electoral votes than yours does. So their vote actually counts more than yours. 2. Cities are where the mass of the people live so in that way they have a lot to do with the EC which assigns number of votes based on population. tamaka.... Both of your points are false. It does not appear that you understand how the Electoral College works. 1. You are conflating Electoral votes with individual votes. The MORE Electoral votes PER individual in my state, the more power my individual vote has. )Another way to put it (to better understand the example below) would be to say The FEWER individual votes per Electoral vote in my state, the more power my individual vote has. Due to: A. The fact that the number of Electors = # of House Reps + 2 Senators B. The census bureau's imperfect apportionment formula Sparsely populated states are granted a significantly LOWER Individual Vote / Electoral vote ratio than heavier populated states. Here is an example: Wyoming: The most sparsely populated state gets 1 electoral vote per 142,741 people. Each Wyomingan's (Are they called Wyomingans?) vote carries more weight in the Presidential Election than any of the rest of us. California: Gets 1 electoral vote per 508,344... 49th worst in the country. If you are a Californian, individuals in 48 states have more voting power than you. Of course, that doesn't even address the MANY millions of Republicans in California whose vote is basically thrown in the trash, because California has (not a huge, but a solid) Democratic majority. 2. Electors are determined by state population. (+ 2 free electors). Cities have nothing to do with the calculation. To state that "Cities are where the mass of people live" is not very relevant." People live in Counties, states, districts, Burroughs, Townships, Villages, and Communes too!

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 5:25:01 AM)
nm

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 5:30:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is the problem, the reason for the EC is so that a small densly populated part of the country couldn't rule the nation. I think, what you are failing to understand is that "densely populated part of the country" is densely populated with U.S. citizens who have JUST as much right as INDIVIDUALS to select the President as INDIVIDUALS in a sparsely populated part of the country. The EC makes people in the sparsely populated areas have votes that carry far more weight than people in the densely populated parts. At the end of the day... U.S. Citizens are individuals... Not STATES.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 5:43:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Just like they have demonstrated that they hve no business owning firearms they have demonstrated that they are simply predators who lack cincern for the community at large. Those of us who have not committed felonies, on the other had , have not demonstrated that we should not have either. Not all ex-felons have "no business owning firearms". Also, some people who have only committed misdemeanors or have no convictions at all have no business owning firearms. It depends on the circumstances. Take Republican hero, Tom DeLay (Master of Republican Gerrymandering in Texas). He was convicted of Felony money laundering. I have NO problem with him owning a firearm, and NO problem with him voting. (But as Musicmystery so astutely pointed out: I have a HUGE problem with him holding public office!)

Kirata -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 5:48:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 The EC makes people in the sparsely populated areas have votes that carry far more weight than people in the densely populated parts. Well that's not entirely true, because less populated states have fewer Electors. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 At the end of the day... U.S. Citizens are individuals... Not STATES. U.S. citizens are individuals, but the United States is a union of states. K.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 6:02:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 The EC makes people in the sparsely populated areas have votes that carry far more weight than people in the densely populated parts. Well that's not entirely true, because less populated states have fewer Electors. READ the pretty RED words: You are conflating Electoral votes with individual votes. The MORE Electoral votes PER individual in my state, the more power my individual vote has. )Another way to put it (to better understand the example below) would be to say The FEWER individual votes per Electoral vote in my state, the more power my individual vote has. Due to: A. The fact that the number of Electors = # of House Reps + 2 Senators B. The census bureau's imperfect apportionment formula Sparsely populated states are granted a significantly LOWER Individual Vote / Electoral vote ratio than heavier populated states. Here is an example: Wyoming: The most sparsely populated state gets 1 electoral vote per 142,741 people. Each Wyomingan's (Are they called Wyomingans?) vote carries more weight in the Presidential Election than any of the rest of us. California: Gets 1 electoral vote per 508,344... 49th worst in the country. If you are a Californian, individuals in 48 states have more voting power than you. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata U.S. citizens are individuals, but the United States is a union of states. True. But the vast majority of governing from the Executive branch concerns the U.S. citizens as individuals. NOT the states.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 8:37:02 AM)
quote: I think, what you are failing to understand is that "densely populated part of the country" is densely populated with U.S. citizens who have JUST as much right as INDIVIDUALS to select the President as INDIVIDUALS in a sparsely populated part of the country. Correct, they all have the exact same right - none whatsoever. quote: The EC makes people in the sparsely populated areas have votes that carry far more weight than people in the densely populated parts. Correct. That is the way it was intended to work. It always has worked that way. quote: At the end of the day... U.S. Citizens are individuals... Not STATES. Correct again, however, in this case they are being represented by the states. You do remember that bit about being a representative form of democracy, don't you?

Kirata -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 8:54:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 READ the pretty RED words: This will obviously come a surprise to the brain cell doing your posting, but what you've presented is an argument for better apportionment, not an argument against the Electoral College. Apportionment is currently based on the total population of a state, including non-citizens. In the year 2000, the latest data I could put my finger on quickly, California had over five million non-citizens, while Wyoming had only six thousand (here). I'd be all for changing the way we apportion Representatives and Electors. K.

Musicmystery -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 9:20:50 AM)
The problem is, those benefiting don't want better apportionment.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 10:15:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I think, what you are failing to understand is that "densely populated part of the country" is densely populated with U.S. citizens who have JUST as much right as INDIVIDUALS to select the President as INDIVIDUALS in a sparsely populated part of the country. Correct, they all have the exact same right - none whatsoever. quote: The EC makes people in the sparsely populated areas have votes that carry far more weight than people in the densely populated parts. Correct. That is the way it was intended to work. It always has worked that way. quote: At the end of the day... U.S. Citizens are individuals... Not STATES. Correct again, however, in this case they are being represented by the states. You do remember that bit about being a representative form of democracy, don't you? This post, while mostly accurate, is so devoid of relevance to the discussion, that I will refrain from further comment, rather than start over at ground zero.

BamaD -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 10:49:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is the problem, the reason for the EC is so that a small densly populated part of the country couldn't rule the nation. I think, what you are failing to understand is that "densely populated part of the country" is densely populated with U.S. citizens who have JUST as much right as INDIVIDUALS to select the President as INDIVIDUALS in a sparsely populated part of the country. The EC makes people in the sparsely populated areas have votes that carry far more weight than people in the densely populated parts. At the end of the day... U.S. Citizens are individuals... Not STATES. I understand that completely. What you do not understand is that in order to keep a couple of densely populated areas from running the country we had 51 presidential elections the vast majority of which Trump won. On the other hand A It is Monday so we need to get rid of the EC. B Those rubes in fly over country don't know what they are doing anyway.

mnottertail -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 10:52:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is the problem, the reason for the EC is so that a small densly populated part of the country couldn't rule the nation. I think, what you are failing to understand is that "densely populated part of the country" is densely populated with U.S. citizens who have JUST as much right as INDIVIDUALS to select the President as INDIVIDUALS in a sparsely populated part of the country. The EC makes people in the sparsely populated areas have votes that carry far more weight than people in the densely populated parts. At the end of the day... U.S. Citizens are individuals... Not STATES. I understand that completely. What you do not understand is that in order to keep a couple of densely populated areas from running the country we had 51 presidential elections the vast majority of which Trump won. So you would trade that for one sparsely populated area, and the will of the citizens.

mnottertail -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 10:59:06 AM)
The blue map that is out here with the meme is wholly wrong in any case. http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/US-census-maps-demographics.html Or, if you prefer: http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/geog1000/maplinks/namerica/USpop1990.gif Lets not overload the word 'rural' here, nor 'a few big cities'. The meme post picture being even more factless than usual.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 1:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I think, what you are failing to understand is that "densely populated part of the country" is densely populated with U.S. citizens who have JUST as much right as INDIVIDUALS to select the President as INDIVIDUALS in a sparsely populated part of the country. Correct, they all have the exact same right - none whatsoever. quote: The EC makes people in the sparsely populated areas have votes that carry far more weight than people in the densely populated parts. Correct. That is the way it was intended to work. It always has worked that way. quote: At the end of the day... U.S. Citizens are individuals... Not STATES. Correct again, however, in this case they are being represented by the states. You do remember that bit about being a representative form of democracy, don't you? This post, while mostly accurate, is so devoid of relevance to the discussion, that I will refrain from further comment, rather than start over at ground zero. No darling, I am afraid it is not devoid of relevance at all. Perhaps if you would pay closer attention to what has already been said.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Electoral College 101 (1/2/2017 3:14:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 READ the pretty RED words: This will obviously come a surprise to the brain cell doing your posting, but what you've presented is an argument for better apportionment, not an argument against the Electoral College. Apportionment is currently based on the total population of a state, including non-citizens. In the year 2000, the latest data I could put my finger on quickly, California had over five million non-citizens, while Wyoming had only six thousand (here). I'd be all for changing the way we apportion Representatives and Electors. K. Almost correct. The counting of non-citizens is one issue in the context of apportionment. I am certainly making the argument that apportionment is flawed. However apportionment would be ireelevant in the context of Presidential electiions were it not for the Electoral College. There are SO many layers of flaws with the system, addrssing poor apportionment is in no way mutally exclusive of addressing the Electoral College. If you changed the word "not" to the phrase "as part of", you would be correct.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625