Do you understand the purpose of the electoral college? Do you agree with it?

[ALiberalModerate]

1) You would be wrong about that.
2) The award of the 16 E.V. was prolonged beyond reason. Apparently it was thought that 290 was not as dramatic as 306.

1. The electoral college at the time of the founding fathers was implemented largely to inflate the slaves states influence on elections.

2. You still have not addressed the problem of a vote in a state like Wyoming being worth a lot more than an individuals vote in a state like Texas.

3. I don't know why it took so long in Michigan. Like I said, its been obvious Trump won it since at least Thursday.

It's all neither here nor there because we are not going to get rid of the electoral college any time soon and frankly even if we were, we shouldn't until 2024 because the rules should not be changed for Trump's reelection campaign. I will say though that people in cities are getting sick of the inflated political voice of rural areas. For example, I live on the Kansas side of the Kansas City Metro. The county I live in, Johnson County, basically funds the entire state. Yet, a signficant portion of our taxes gets funnelled out to Central and Western Kansas. This is because they have an outsized influence relative to their population in the statehouse. So my sales taxes, property taxes, personal property taxes, and state income taxes (and federal for that matter) get funnelled to those rural parts of the state. Hell they would be doing good to have flush toilets in Western Kansas if it were not for Johnson County taxpayers. Now my county is a county that supports moderate Republicans. We vote for moderate Republicans in the state senate, we vote for moderate Republicans in the state house, we vote for moderate Republican governors. Yet because of the gerrymandering at the state and federal level, we are stuck with the most far right nutjobs imagionable running the state and even a hardcore conservative Republican for our local congressman. So we get to pay all the bills yet we don't get the government we want. This is the case in state's across the country. I don't have anything against rural areas. I grew up in rural Arkansas. I live in a city because thats where the good jobs are. However, I do think that as the country is more and more urbanized, our government needs to better reflect that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

States set their own election rules regardless of whether you have an electoral system or a popular vote. The difference being that if you had a popular vote, states would have an incentive to encourage as many of their residents as possible to vote. For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes, it has those 10 electoral votes worth of influence over the presidential election regardless of whether they have 40% turnout or 85% turnout. However, with a popular vote system, the higher a state's turnout, the greater its voice in an election. Every vote counts as well. Republicans in blue states have as much of a voice in the presidential election as Democrats in that state do, and vice versa.

Moreover, as I have pointed out elsewhere in the thread, in a state like Wyoming, there is 1 electoral vote to every 190,000 residents or so. In Texas, there is 1 electoral vote to every 600,000 residents or so. Thus an individual vote in Wyoming is 3 times as powerful as one in Texas. Hardly a fair system, particuarly considering that residents of states like Texas are the taxpayers that largely pay for everything in this country.

Finally, while other countries have adopted many aspects of our constitution, no one wants the electoral system. If it is such a great system, why does no one else want it?

It is fair in the regard that no state becomes irrelevent in the process though. Again we do not have a national election for President. We have 50 state elections plus Washington DC (and a few territories). Then each state contributes their share to the process.

Wyoming has fewer people than the Albuquerque metro area alone. And the Albuquerque metro area is small compared to the LA metro area or NYC or Houston metro area etc. And yet Wyoming and New Mexico do have a voice in the election for President. If the process was popular vote instead of state vote, we would have none as our small numbers would be pretty much irrelevant.

Again it is not a perfect system. But it is more fair than any other way it could be done if you are going to allow the people a voice.

I didn't get my way in New Mexico, but my vote did count. And if enough of my fellow Americans choose to see it as I see it, my vote can also count on the winning side now and then.

 

[Greenbeard]

And yet Wyoming and New Mexico do have a voice in the election for President. If the process was popular vote instead of state vote, we would have none as our small numbers would be pretty much irrelevant.

This gets repeated ad nauseam. What does it mean? In what sense was Wyoming relevant in this election?

 

[TurtleDude]

You don't know what I value. That is the problem. You don't care about what people like me value so why should we care what you value? Your instinct is to minimize the concerns of people that disagree with you. The EPA is going to be throttled back to an enforcement agency rather than an over reaching legislative body. Too freaking bad.

The EPA has become what the ATF was a few years ago: the closest thing to an American Gestapo. claiming because you have a puddle in your back yard gives them "wetland" jurisdiction has gone way too far.

 

[NonoBadDog]

The EPA has become what the ATF was a few years ago: the closest thing to an American Gestapo. claiming because you have a puddle in your back yard gives them "wetland" jurisdiction has gone way too far.

Yeah, control beer, ski resorts, resort lakes, ranches, farms and any other industry that uses water. It's gonna suck to be them. We could cut the EPA by half and save a pile of money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/science/myron-ebell-trump-epa.html?_r=0

The mug-shot posters, pasted on walls and lampposts around Paris by an activist group during the United Nations climate talks last year, were hardly flattering. They depicted Myron Ebell, a climate contrarian, as one of seven “climate criminals” wanted for “destroying our future.”

But in his customary mild-mannered way, Mr. Ebell, who directs environmental and energy policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group in Washington, brushed it off.
“I’ve gotten used to this over the years,” he told an interviewer at the talks. “But I did go out and get my photo taken with my poster, just so I have it as a memento.”
In looking for someone to follow through on his campaign vow to dismantle one of the Obama administration’s signature climate change policies, President-elect Donald J. Trump probably could not have found a better candidate for the job than Mr. Ebell.

 

[Greenbeard]

The EPA has become what the ATF was a few years ago: the closest thing to an American Gestapo. claiming because you have a puddle in your back yard gives them "wetland" jurisdiction has gone way too far.

The Gestapo was an instrument of mass murder and summary execution.

Not puddle regulation.

 

[TurtleDude]

1. The electoral college at the time of the founding fathers was implemented largely to inflate the slaves states influence on elections.

2. You still have not addressed the problem of a vote in a state like Wyoming being worth a lot more than an individuals vote in a state like Texas.

3. I don't know why it took so long in Michigan. Like I said, its been obvious Trump won it since at least Thursday.

It's all neither here nor there because we are not going to get rid of the electoral college any time soon and frankly even if we were, we shouldn't until 2024 because the rules should not be changed for Trump's reelection campaign. I will say though that people in cities are getting sick of the inflated political voice of rural areas. For example, I live on the Kansas side of the Kansas City Metro. The county I live in, Johnson County, basically funds the entire state. Yet, a signficant portion of our taxes gets funnelled out to Central and Western Kansas. This is because they have an outsized influence relative to their population in the statehouse. So my sales taxes, property taxes, personal property taxes, and state income taxes (and federal for that matter) get funnelled to those rural parts of the state. Hell they would be doing good to have flush toilets in Western Kansas if it were not for Johnson County taxpayers. Now my county is a county that supports moderate Republicans. We vote for moderate Republicans in the state senate, we vote for moderate Republicans in the state house, we vote for moderate Republican governors. Yet because of the gerrymandering at the state and federal level, we are stuck with the most far right nutjobs imagionable running the state and even a hardcore conservative Republican for our local congressman. So we get to pay all the bills yet we don't get the government we want. This is the case in state's across the country. I don't have anything against rural areas. I grew up in rural Arkansas. I live in a city because thats where the good jobs are. However, I do think that as the country is more and more urbanized, our government needs to better reflect that.

how about a great idea-the more federal income tax dollars you pay, the more votes you get. 20 people sucking on the public tit aren't really contributing ANYTHING to the rest of us but they have more votes than someone who pays a million in taxes.

And how about making that true in state elections as well? I moved out of the City of Cincinnati 27 years ago because I was tired of the inner city voting for more and taxes on those of us who actually paid taxes. And I strongly supported an effort to eliminate cities taxing the wages of those who cannot vote in their elections. That came close to passing. Most of the high earning executives in Cincinnati no longer live within the city proper.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Gestapo was an instrument of mass murder and summary execution.

Not puddle regulation.

The Gestapo was an example of too much government and not enough freedom

the point stands

 

[Russell797]

It is fair in the regard that no state becomes irrelevent in the process though. Again we do not have a national election for President. We have 50 state elections plus Washington DC (and a few territories). Then each state contributes their share to the process.

Wyoming has fewer people than the Albuquerque metro area alone. And the Albuquerque metro area is small compared to the LA metro area or NYC or Houston metro area etc. And yet Wyoming and New Mexico do have a voice in the election for President. If the process was popular vote instead of state vote, we would have none as our small numbers would be pretty much irrelevant.

Again it is not a perfect system. But it is more fair than any other way it could be done if you are going to allow the people a voice.

I didn't get my way in New Mexico, but my vote did count. And if enough of my fellow Americans choose to see it as I see it, my vote can also count on the winning side now and then.

How can you say your vote counted if it is not reflected by the Electoral votes cast by your state?

 

[Russell797]

There's a difference between expanding and going off on an off-topic tangent.

Then why did you bring it up? Don't bother answering.

 

[Russell797]

And yet you still prove what I stated four posts ago but keep on typing.

Prove what? Are you saying science should not be considered at the EPA? What you claim is overreach is the EPA being guided by the environmental sciences.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Prove what? Are you saying science should not be considered at the EPA? What you claim is overreach is the EPA being guided by the environmental sciences.

Keep typing. I am enjoying your posts that I am not reading. :thumbs::coffeepap

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It is fair in the regard that no state becomes irrelevant in the process, though. Again we do not have a national election for President. We have 50 state elections plus Washington DC (and a few territories). Then each state contributes their share to the process.

Wyoming has fewer people than the Albuquerque metro area alone. And the Albuquerque metro area is small compared to the LA metro area or NYC or Houston metro area etc. And yet Wyoming and New Mexico do have a voice in the election for President. If the process was popular vote instead of state vote, we would have none as our small numbers would be pretty much irrelevant.

Again it is not a perfect system. But it is more fair than any other way it could be done if you are going to allow the people a voice.

I didn't get my way in New Mexico, but my vote did count. And if enough of my fellow Americans choose to see it as I see it, my vote can also count on the winning side now and then.

You didn't get your way in New Mexico, and your vote didn't count. I think the differences in our viewpoints on this is that you think that the residents of each state need a voice because each state may have different concerns. I think that my concerns as a voter in the Kansas City area are probably about the same as the concerns of a voter in the Albuquerque area and a voter in Western Kansas has about the same concerns as a voter in any agricultrural area in the plains, just like a voter in rural areas in the timber belts have about the same concerns regardless of whether they are in the Pacific Northwest or the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. States in many ways create artificial boundaries in regards to voter concerns of president, and the electoral system often prevents voters with similar concerns but in different states, from all having their votes count.

 

[NonoBadDog]

My tax dollars at work:

 

[Caine]

You didn't get your way in New Mexico, and your vote didn't count. I think the differences in our viewpoints on this is that you think that the residents of each state need a voice because each state may have different concerns. I think that my concerns as a voter in the Kansas City area are probably about the same as the concerns of a voter in the Albuquerque area and a voter in Western Kansas has about the same concerns as a voter in any agricultrural area in the plains, just like a voter in rural areas in the timber belts have about the same concerns regardless of whether they are in the Pacific Northwest or the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. States in many ways create artificial boundaries in regards to voter concerns of president, and the electoral system often prevents voters with similar concerns but in different states, from all having their votes count.

So then you essentially believe we should have a popular vote...

Rendering all say in our federal executive branch to the needs of those in like... 20 of America's cities and rendering everyone else in mid-size towns and cities, as well as the rural areas completely irrelevant.


The way that the electoral college works, a candidate has to receive support from the cities AND the rural area. Mind you the balance isn't necessarily COMPLETE support, but some support. A candidate can receive overwhelming support from large cities and a PASSABLE amount from the smaller cities and the rural area to win. Or a candidate can receive overwhelming support from the small/mid size cities and rural areas and a PASSABLE amount of support from the large cities.

Your pissed because the 2nd option is what occurred in this election.

Meanwhile I am happy because I actually got a say in what happens in our country.

 

[AlbqOwl]

This gets repeated ad nauseam. What does it mean? In what sense was Wyoming relevant in this election?

If the EC vote had been much closer, Wyomings 3 EC vote could have tipped the balance. Any of the fairly large number of states with only 3 EC votes could have done that. So the votes within those states counted for a good deal. There are still winners and losers, but that's why we have elections. Everybody can't have their own way--it is a democratic process because the popular vote within each state determines how the EC votes are assigned and that prevents a tyranny of minority of 'elites' or anything else. And we remain a Republic so that a consistent majority cannot be created to override most of the will of the rest of the country. It isn't always perfect, but it is the most fair and just system ever devised to determine an election for a very large, very diverse, very unevenly populated nation.

Everybody's vote counts.

 

[AlbqOwl]

How can you say your vote counted if it is not reflected by the Electoral votes cast by your state?

Just because I lost in my state does not mean that my vote didn't count. It did. Next time maybe more of my fellow New Mexicans will see it as I see it and I will be on the winning side. But everybody's vote within New Mexico counted just as much as anybody else's vote unless somebody was illegally screwing with the process.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You didn't get your way in New Mexico, and your vote didn't count. I think the differences in our viewpoints on this is that you think that the residents of each state need a voice because each state may have different concerns. I think that my concerns as a voter in the Kansas City area are probably about the same as the concerns of a voter in the Albuquerque area and a voter in Western Kansas has about the same concerns as a voter in any agricultrural area in the plains, just like a voter in rural areas in the timber belts have about the same concerns regardless of whether they are in the Pacific Northwest or the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. States in many ways create artificial boundaries in regards to voter concerns of president, and the electoral system often prevents voters with similar concerns but in different states, from all having their votes count.

Well I am sorry you see it that way. I believe it did count. Gerrymandering in New Mexico exists too in an effort to spread the power and that process benefits the Democrats more than the Republicans. That's okay because there are more registered Democrats in New Mexico than there are registered Republicans or all other parties combined. That doesn't bother me in the least because I could choose to move a few hundred miles and be in a state in which the Republicans and all other parties outnumber the Democrats.

But the vote in New Mexico was not affected in the least by the gerrymandering because we are a winner take all state determined by the popular vote over the entire state. The vote didn't go the way I wish it would have, but my vote counted just as much as anybody else's vote.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Everybody's vote counts.

Say I am a US citizen and ran for president. I get 120M votes while my opponent gets 115M votes according to you since everybody's vote counts, I win because I got more votes right?

If you say no, then some votes from particular locations are getting more value then other votes which is not good at all and seems like discrimination comparable to the way your country denied blacks and women from voting.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Rural America launched Trump into the WH over the objections of the coastal elite which could only have happened because of the EC, which was in great service to America, and was a fulfilling of the EC intent, this is exactly the wrong time to try to convince me to rub out the EC.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Say I am a US citizen and ran for president. I get 120M votes while my opponent gets 115M votes according to you since everybody's vote counts, I win because I got more votes right?

If you say no, then some votes from particular locations are getting more value then other votes which is not good at all.

That's the way it works in a pure democracy where the majority of the votes wins. The USA is not a pure democracy because a pure democracy usually pretty much shuts the minority out of having any power whatsoever. The USA is a republic made up of states that are sovereign in all respects other than what was intended to be very little obligation to the central government and they are forbidden to do economic, environmental, and/or physical violence to each other.

Each state sets its own election process as it sees fit though all citizens, age 18 and older, who register to vote as their state requires, and who are not felons, are entitled to vote. That vote within each state is democratic with the winners determining the person who will get their electoral college votes. And then the electoral college is democratic in that the candidate who gets the most of that vote wins.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

That's the way it works in a pure democracy where the majority of the votes wins. The USA is not a pure democracy because a pure democracy usually pretty much shuts the minority out of having any power whatsoever. The USA is a republic made up of states that are sovereign in all respects other than what was intended to be very little obligation to the central government and they are forbidden to do economic, environmental, and/or physical violence to each other.

Each state sets its own election process as it sees fit though all citizens, age 18 and older, who register to vote as their state requires, and who are not felons, are entitled to vote. That vote within each state is democratic with the winners determining the person who will get their electoral college votes. And then the electoral college is democratic in that the candidate who gets the most of that vote wins.

So yeah not every vote counts then. If you live in a swing state, your vote counts more then someone's else vote who votes in Texas or California. I thought the USA got rid of this kind of discrimination decades ago I guess not. Sad.

 

[Mycroft]

Say I am a US citizen and ran for president. I get 120M votes while my opponent gets 115M votes according to you since everybody's vote counts, I win because I got more votes right?

If you say no, then some votes from particular locations are getting more value then other votes which is not good at all and seems like discrimination comparable to the way your country denied blacks and women from voting.

Getting 120m votes doesn't matter one bit. What matters is how many votes you get in each individual state/territory. However, everybody's vote DOES count...in that individual state/territory.

And yes...the votes from some locations have a higher value than from other locations. That's the basis of the electoral college system and the reason for it is just as valid today as it was when the Founding Fathers designed it.

Discrimination doesn't enter into the picture at all. EVERYONE has the right to vote.

 

[Caine]

So yeah not every vote counts then. If you live in a swing state, your vote counts more then someone's else vote who votes in Texas or California. I thought the USA got rid of this kind of discrimination decades ago I guess not. Sad.

What do you mean? Texas and California count for the most amount of Electoral College votes of any state in the country. Don't give me that Texas and California don't count nonsense.

California itself accounts for 55 electoral votes. Which means that it is 10% of the total electoral college. And 20% of what is needed for Democrats to win (I say that because its been a couple decades since they went for anyone but a Democrat).

If 1/5 of what you need to win is in ONE state, you can't say that they don't ****ing count.

 

[Coldwine]

Since Hillary won the popular vote while Trump won the electoral vote, there have been a lot of protests and disagreements about the electoral college.

The most common counter-argument I see from people who support the electoral college is some variation of "Well you just don't understand the reason for it".

So I'm curious how true this is. Do you understand the purpose of the electoral college? And do you agree with it?

There's a simple test to see if someone actually opposes the Electoral College on principle, or is just whining because they lost an election. Do they oppose our bicameral legislature on principle? Because they are rooted in the exact same principle. The House represents population, the Senate represents the states, and the College adds the two together to represent both. It really is that simple. If you think that the Electoral College disenfranchises people, then you must believe the same thing about the Senate in order to avoid contradicting yourself. In fact, the College disenfranchises less people because it actually gives DC input into the election of our President, while the Senate excludes them.