• 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??

Scatty Kitty said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hopefully this will have been the election to have awoken all those stay-at-home couch potatoes. Had everyone voted, it's hard to have seen a Trump win.
 
phoenix2020 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would also give states an even bigger impetus to gerrymander congressional districts.
 
The Stars Tremble said:
No, Bush won the popular vote in 2004.

50.7% in fact
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. When I mentioned the year 1988, it was in reference to the senior Bush. I had forgotten his son's reelection win where he too won the popular vote.

"The victory by the former president makes it the first time that a Republican candidate won the popular vote since George W. Bush in 2004 when he was reelected over John F. Kerry.

To find the next instance of a Republican winning the popular vote, you’d have to go back another 16 years to when Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, won the 1988 election over Michael S. Dukakis."
 
Land still doesn't vote and the electoral college should still be abolished. What are you crying about?
 
The AntiDonald said:
Hopefully this will have been the election to have awoken all those stay-at-home couch potatoes. Had everyone voted, it's hard to have seen a Trump win.
Click to expand...

Woulda', coulda', shoulda', didn't.
Maybe if everyone had voted, Trump would have won by even more votes.
 
Lovebug said:
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?



This was then, this is now.
Regardless of which side is thumping their chest, it is something to be re-evaluated.
Click to expand...
From your article.....
This was a concern for smaller States that feared the domination of the presidency by States with larger populations.

This is still not true today?

Although I still support the EC, I do also believe that it can be rendered moot. But only if both parties start putting candidates out there who are actually truly qualified (who is qualified to be POTUS is a different thread) and not so radical. No one should be surprised that Trump won. The dems screwed up horribly by nominating Biden in 2020. That gave them a temporary 4 year respite from Trump. His handlers hid his mental state from the voters spectacularly. Then, knowing he would not be able to run again, much less finish his term, their backup plan was a "surprise" run by Kamala??? LMAO. BOTH parties need to seriously look in the mirror and do some serious revamping of their platforms and policies to try and make themselves palatable to most voters. Relying on independents to swing their way every election cycle is not going to work.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
The "MAGAT" or "Trumptard" blasts.
Click to expand...

These accusations are impossible to ignore, here. They are a conditioned response predicated on tribal identity.

If you pay attention, you will see that those who use these smears are also the same ones who talk in terms of WE as they regurgitate the necessary talking points.
 
phoenix2020 said:
I hope you are able to track down these two people and wage your personal war with them in private.

Best wishes.
Click to expand...
Actually one has already replied. And I really don't do "personal wars" with other members here like many. I think you took my saying I wanted to call people out a little too seriously. Although I have called a couple of members out in the basement. But there was really not alot of back and forth there.

Enjoy your weekend!
 
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 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...
I am not for abolishing the DOE, and I don't think it will be abolished, although it does need to be revamped, as our country has fallen way behind in education. Even if it was abolished, Congress would still be able to apportion funds to programs like special education and poor school districts. You don't necessarily need a DOE for that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
With a super slim House republicant majority, it’s going to be very hard to cut anyone’s ‘pork’.
Click to expand...
Yep. There are still plenty of never-Trumpers who will block alot of what the majority of Republicans want to push through.
 
j brown's body said:
LAND certainly contributes to Republicans controlling the Senate.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you think the role of the Senate should be. The reason it's set up this way is that states used to appoint Senators, they weren't directly elected, and their job was to represent the interests of the state governments on a federal level. The interests of the people were handled solely through the house.

It made sense in that context, however now that it's just a vote across all people in the state it makes a lot less sense. But, it's also not really realistic to change as it would require a constitutional amendment, and since far more than 25% of states would lose voting power by making this change, it could never pass being ratified.

There's a lot of problems in the US system that have issues stemming from things like this where changes were made over time and they just don't scale well.
 
Gardener said:
These accusations are impossible to ignore, here. They are a conditioned response predicated on tribal identity.

If you pay attention, you will see that those who use these smears are also the same ones who talk in terms of WE as they regurgitate the necessary talking points.
Click to expand...

Typical echo chamber behavior. Power in numbers.
 
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 never held the position that winning via the EC was unfair, so that's not a point for me to defend. I will point out though, that my understanding of the "land doesn't vote" comment is it use when people use maps of county voting results on a map as an indicator of how popular a candidate was, since some counties have a lot of land but a very low population count; this is particularly true of rural counties.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Yep. There are still plenty of never-Trumpers who will block alot of what the majority of Republicans want to push through.
Click to expand...

It’s not so much about Trump or party, it’s about bringing home the bacon (pork?) to their district’s donors.
 
The Electoral College was mainly instituted to give small states a voice and to prevent a demagogue from becoming president. The EC has failed miserably.
 
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...
He absolutely won 'fair and square' in the sense that the votes cast, were the votes that were largely counted. . But that has nothing to do with the fact that in multiple elections the EC handed the presidency over to someone who earned fewer votes and Gerry mander redistricting served to effectively divest voters in populous states of the power and authority of their legally cast ballots . The EC needs to go bye bye, and gerrymandered district lines are a blight on our elections. .

I
 
Maidenrules29 said:
I am not for abolishing the DOE, and I don't think it will be abolished, although it does need to be revamped, as our country has fallen way behind in education. Even if it was abolished, Congress would still be able to apportion funds to programs like special education and poor school districts. You don't necessarily need a DOE for that.
Click to expand...
Sadly it’s your body but Donald’s choice and if he doesn’t want special needs children to enjoy educational services, that is something you’ll simply have to accept. Elections have consequences and the incoming admin have been very clear that they want to shut down the DOE in its entirely and NOT reallocate the funding for any of its services, and make states decide whether they want children with disabilities to have educational options. In the new order, some states like California will find a way to fund such programs, but others like Oklahoma will not.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Yep. There are still plenty of never-Trumpers who will block alot of what the majority of Republicans want to push through.
Click to expand...
I think the appetite is less now. Democrats spent the last 8 years trying to put guardrails on MAGA and look where it got them. Going forward I think Democrats will focus on safeguarding their specific constitutents, shielding them from the worst and letting the other 65% of the electorate fend for themselves for a change. I personally favor this. America wanted MAGA without bounds so they should get to experience it first hand now. Plenty of people like me don’t want to see our tax dollars funding programs for Trump voters who keep telling us that they don’t want these programs either. So, terrific I say. Let’s chop government, and see what happens. I’m game for the experiment.
 
phoenix2020 said:
I think the appetite is less now. Democrats spent the last 8 years trying to put guardrails on MAGA and look where it got them. Going forward I think Democrats will focus on safeguarding their specific constitutents, shielding them from the worst and letting the other 65% of the electorate fend for themselves for a change. I personally favor this. America wanted MAGA without bounds so they should get to experience it first hand now. Plenty of people like me don’t want to see our tax dollars funding programs for Trump voters who keep telling us that they don’t want these programs either. So, terrific I say. Let’s chop government, and see what happens. I’m game for the experiment.
Click to expand...
Re: America wanted MAGA without bounds so they should get to experience it first hand now.

They'll probably need to wait for some future Congress.

119th Congress
House:
Democrats 215 seats
Republicans 220 seats (with at least three of these pending special elections if cabinet nominations are confirmed by the Senate.)
Senate:
Democrats 47 seats
Republicans 53 seats

The only assurance any partisan may have is the next two years will be interesting, contested . . . and vexing.
 
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...
Yes, he won fair and square. I don't know what more to add to that. I...don't think that's a particularly controversial take? 🤷‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom