• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can all of the "LAND DOESN'T VOTE!!" people chime in since Trump won the popular vote??

Maidenrules29

Maidenrules29

Death to all but METAL!!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
7,586
Reaction score
3,873
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Before the election, we had many electoral college detractors crying "no fair" about Trump getting elected in 2016, and whining about a potential victory this time and once again bitching about the EC because they figured that was the only way he could win. Well? What do you all have to say now? Will you aquiesce to the fact he won fair and square or will you give excuses??

Please note I am NOT a Trump supporter but I DO support the EC, so please don't with the "MAGAT" or "Trumptard" blasts.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Before the election, we had many electoral college detractors crying "no fair" about Trump getting elected in 2016, and whining about a potential victory this time and once again bitching about the EC because they figured that was the only way he could win. Well? What do you all have to say now? Will you aquiesce to the fact he won fair and square or will you give excuses??

Please note I am NOT a Trump supporter but I DO support the EC, so please don't with the "MAGAT" or "Trumptard" blasts.
Click to expand...
It’s December 6. Did you just wake up from a month-long snooze?
 
TBH, This post was a little lazy. There are two members inparticular here who I was debating the EC with whose names I don't remember (my short term memory is AWFUL) and for whom I didn't take the time to find and call out. Perhaps tomorrow while watching my Longhorns play I will do that unless they somehow respond.
 
I'm opposed to the EC and also recognize that Trump won the popular vote.
 
eman623 said:
If land could vote, then why wouldn't Alaska dominate presidential elections?

Land doesn't vote. States vote.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be that way. States could apportion their citizens' votes according to districts (like Arkansas and Maine do) or they could divide their electors to most closely match the popular vote in their state.

It wouldn't be radically different.

Using the Maine system, the electoral college would look a lot like the US House result, plus 100 electors matching the popular vote in each state. It would arguably be worse, because the States would have added incentive to gerrymander.

Using a "nearest fit" method would still be subject to over-representation of the voters in small states. For states with three electors (corresponding to 2 Senators and 1 Rep) it would very often split 2/1, providing some representation for the political minority. As states got larger, the representation would be more accurate. HOWEVER, the bigger states would send electors for minor parties and independents.

In 2016 the Electoral College would have been hung, if elected by nearest to popular vote in each state. A few libertarians would have had the power to decide either way, or in fact to stay "faithful" and send the election to a House contingent election. This in my opinion is worse than the current "avalanche of states" system.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
TBH, This post was a little lazy. There are two members inparticular here who I was debating the EC with whose names I don't remember (my short term memory is AWFUL) and for whom I didn't take the time to find and call out. Perhaps tomorrow while watching my Longhorns play I will do that unless they somehow respond.
Click to expand...
I hope you are able to track down these two people and wage your personal war with them in private.

Best wishes.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Before the election, we had many electoral college detractors crying "no fair" about Trump getting elected in 2016, and whining about a potential victory this time and once again bitching about the EC because they figured that was the only way he could win. Well? What do you all have to say now? Will you aquiesce to the fact he won fair and square or will you give excuses??

Please note I am NOT a Trump supporter but I DO support the EC, so please don't with the "MAGAT" or "Trumptard" blasts.
Click to expand...
Not a Trump supporter? Could have fooled me. Yes, you opened the door on that.

MAGA has been crying about the elections for 4 years, just to now pretend it wasn't so and pointing fingers. What gives?

Creating the Electoral CollegeTo understand the origins of the Electoral College, one should look at life and politics in theUnited States in 1787.• The country had only 13 States, which until 1776 had been separate colonies. Thefounders believed that State loyalties could trump the best interests of a national government and that it would be difficult to elect a candidate with national prestige. If a candidate was required to win States instead of just popular votes, however, it would bemore likely that he would have wide-ranging support outside his home State. This was aconcern for smaller States that feared the domination of the presidency by States withlarger populations.• Support for popular elections was not universal. While some delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued for the popular election of the president, others believed thatthe public should have a much smaller role.• The logistics of a national popular election in 1787 would have been daunting, even for acountry of only four million people.Today’s Electoral College looks surprisingly similar to the one used in George Washington’s firstelection to the presidency. The only time the structure of the Electoral College was modified byamendment was in 1804. All other modifications to the original version of the Electoral College...
Click to expand...

This was then, this is now.
Regardless of which side is thumping their chest, it is something to be re-evaluated.
 
The Stars Tremble said:
It doesn't have to be that way. States could apportion their citizens' votes according to districts (like Arkansas and Maine do) or they could divide their electors to most closely match the popular vote in their state.
Click to expand...

Nope, its Nebraska and Maine.

The Stars Tremble said:
It wouldn't be radically different.

Using the Maine system, the electoral college would look a lot like the US House result, plus 100 electors matching the popular vote in each state. It would arguably be worse, because the States would have added incentive to gerrymander.

Using a "nearest fit" method would still be subject to over-representation of the voters in small states. For states with three electors (corresponding to 2 Senators and 1 Rep) it would very often split 2/1, providing some representation for the political minority. As states got larger, the representation would be more accurate. HOWEVER, the bigger states would send electors for minor parties and independents.

In 2016 the Electoral College would have been hung, if elected by nearest to popular vote in each state. A few libertarians would have had the power to decide either way, or in fact to stay "faithful" and send the election to a House contingent election. This in my opinion is worse than the current "avalanche of states" system.
Click to expand...
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Before the election, we had many electoral college detractors crying "no fair" about Trump getting elected in 2016, and whining about a potential victory this time and once again bitching about the EC because they figured that was the only way he could win. Well? What do you all have to say now? Will you aquiesce to the fact he won fair and square or will you give excuses??

Please note I am NOT a Trump supporter but I DO support the EC, so please don't with the "MAGAT" or "Trumptard" blasts.
Click to expand...
I don’t particular like the EC and never really have, but I can live with it. I dislike how the EC means candidates can focus on small slices of the country and never even bother trying to make their case in many states, which feels like the pattern for the last 3 elections if not further back.

I do believe he won it fair and square in 2024 as well as 2016. Notably, I also believe he lost fair and square in 2020, and acknowledge that MAGA are disallowed from sharing this view.

I believe elections have consequences and Democrats have spent enough time trying to mitigate the fallout of Trump and the GOP’s policies, putting guardrails in place to protect Americans from their worst impulses only to be blamed for any and all ills, real or imagined. Time for there to be no guardrails. Democrats should focus only on protecting those people who voted for Harris/Walz and ignore the rest. Let them experience MAGA in its full glory.

For example those with or involved with special education? Tough. DOE’s going away, MAGA and conservatives do not want any funding for such needs at the federal, state or local level, so if a person has or works with special needs children or has a loved one who does, well, if they didn’t vote for Harris then I am 100% fine with them being left out in the cold to fend for themselves. They made the choice, now they get to live with the consequences.

And that’s just one example in one area.
 
Last edited:
The Stars Tremble said:
It doesn't have to be that way. States could apportion their citizens' votes according to districts (like Arkansas and Maine do) or they could divide their electors to most closely match the popular vote in their state.

It wouldn't be radically different.

Using the Maine system, the electoral college would look a lot like the US House result, plus 100 electors matching the popular vote in each state. It would arguably be worse, because the States would have added incentive to gerrymander.

Using a "nearest fit" method would still be subject to over-representation of the voters in small states. For states with three electors (corresponding to 2 Senators and 1 Rep) it would very often split 2/1, providing some representation for the political minority. As states got larger, the representation would be more accurate. HOWEVER, the bigger states would send electors for minor parties and independents.

In 2016 the Electoral College would have been hung, if elected by nearest to popular vote in each state. A few libertarians would have had the power to decide either way, or in fact to stay "faithful" and send the election to a House contingent election. This in my opinion is worse than the current "avalanche of states" system.
Click to expand...
I would not mind more states adopting the Maine system. It would force candidates to fight harder for votes across more of the country. But I also see how for the most part either everyone does or no one will offer.
 
Last edited:
phoenix2020 said:
I don’t particular like the EC and never really have, but I can live with it. I dislike how the EC means candidates can focus on small slices of the country and never even bother trying to make their case in many states, which feels like the pattern for the last 3 elections if not further back.

I do believe he won it fair and square in 2024 as well as 2016. Notably, I also believe he lost fair and square in 2020, and acknowledge that MAGA are disallowed from sharing this view.

I believe elections have consequences and Democrats have spent enough time trying to mitigate the fallout of Trump and the GOP’s policies, putting guardrails in place to protect Americans from their worst impulses only to be blamed for any and all ills, real or imagined. Time for there to be no guardrails. Democrats should focus only on protecting those people who voted for Harris/Walz and ignore the rest. Let them experience MAGA in its full glory.

For example those with or involved with special education? Tough. DOE’s going away, MAGA and conservatives do not want any federal funding for such needs at the federal, state or local level, so if a person has or works with special needs children or has a loved one who does, well, if they didn’t vote for Harris then I am 100% fine with them being left out in the cold to fend for themselves. They made the choice, now they get to live with the consequences.

And that’s just one example in one area.
Click to expand...

IMHO, very little (if any) total federal spending will be cut, but more of it will become ‘block grants’ to the states or be moved from one ‘priority’ to another.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
IMHO, very little (if any) total federal spending will be cut, but more of it will become ‘block grants’ to the states or be moved from one ‘priority’ to another.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Regardless, that is now for Marjorie Taylor Greene to decide, since she will be in charge of what gets cut for “efficiency” purposes.
 
More than half the country didn't want him to be president. He didn't win the majority of Americans. He won a plurality of Americans.
 
phoenix2020 said:
Perhaps. Regardless, that is now for Marjorie Taylor Greene to decide, since she will be in charge of what gets cut for “efficiency” purposes.
Click to expand...

With a super slim House republicant majority, it’s going to be very hard to cut anyone’s ‘pork’.
 
LAND certainly contributes to Republicans controlling the Senate.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
IMHO, very little (if any) total federal spending will be cut, but more of it will become ‘block grants’ to the states or be moved from one ‘priority’ to another.
Click to expand...

This will enable states that receive money for sex education to put it into abstinence programs.

Not a model of efficiency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom