Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Electoral College 101


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Electoral College 101 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/1/2017 10:22:37 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 161
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 1:58:32 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so cities alone cant choose the president and dictate policy for the rest of us







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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 162
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 2:20:31 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 163
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 4:30:53 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so cities alone cant choose the president and dictate policy for the rest of us







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.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 164
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 4:33:08 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 165
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 5:23:41 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2355
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online
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!

< Message edited by MasterJaguar01 -- 1/2/2017 5:45:56 AM >

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 166
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 5:25:01 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2355
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online 		nm

< Message edited by MasterJaguar01 -- 1/2/2017 5:32:43 AM >

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 167
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 5:30:24 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2355
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online
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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 168
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 5:43:39 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2355
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online
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!)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 169
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 5:48:26 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 170
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 6:02:11 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2355
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online
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.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 171
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 8:37:02 AM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 172
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 8:54:27 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 173
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 9:20:50 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		The problem is, those benefiting don't want better apportionment.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 174
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 10:15:10 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2355
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online
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.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 175
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 10:49:07 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 1/2/2017 10:52:35 AM >

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 176
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 10:52:47 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 177
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 10:59:06 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.


< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/2/2017 11:01:24 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 178
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 1:41:16 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 179
RE: Electoral College 101 - 1/2/2017 3:14:37 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2355
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online
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.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Electoral College 101 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109