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

[AlbqOwl]

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.

Baloney. Yes some states are ASSUMED to be safe states for the Democrat or Republicans, but Hillary got burned assuming that in the election just ended. Several states she ASSUMED were solidly blue turned red. Romney got burned when some usually red states went blue when he ran for President. My own state voted for Reagan twice, for Bush 41, for Bush 43 twice, but it also voted for Clinton twice and for Obama twice and went for Hillary in this election. It has been going more and more blue in recent years. I am not on the blue side myself, but I accept that the majority of my fellow New Mexicans are going to vote differently than I do. That is not discrimination in any way shape or form. It is the democratic process.

Just because you voted and come up on the losing side does not mean your vote didn't count. It did. It counted just as much as your neighbor whose vote came up on the winning side. But the side that gets the most votes wins in each state. That is just the way it is and all but two of the 50 U.S. states and the Washington DC area prefer it that way. Any one of those states could change the rules any way they want to as to how the EC votes will be apportioned, but most of us prefer to leave it as it is.

 

[bubbabgone]

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.

1) The E.C. was devised as an attempt to balance Congress and the Presidency, and the States and the Federal Government.

2) That was addressed in #193.

3) Your final point sounds an awful lot like condescension, if not that then certainly resentment, toward many of your fellow Kansans because you believe they can't get along without you.
Let's take a look at those points you made.
You say you pay taxes and that supports those in rural Kansas who you say don't pay taxes.
Why is there such a tax system to begin with?
Just what contributions do they make in rural Kansas that you don't make in the city but that benefit you and the rest of the city folk?
What skills do they possess in rural Kansas that you don't possess in the city that benefit you and the rest of the city folk?
Logically then, you must be pretty pissed at the expansion of certain Federal entitlement programs that overwhelmingly benefit citizens in many major cities. Are you upset at that funneling of your taxes?

 

[AlbqOwl]

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.

I tell you what. How about I e-mail the powers in Congress and advise them how you don't like the way we structure our elections in this country and you hold us in contempt as sadly discriminatory. Maybe they could put you on a team to figure out how to change that. Would that make you happy?

I would warn you that they are sometimes really slow to answer e-mails like that.

 

[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.

Your vote did not count and neither did mine. My state gets 11 electoral votes no matter if I vote or don't vote, or no matter who I vote for.

 

[Russell797]

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.

Do birds frequent your puddle? Can you safely keep contaminants out of the ground water which may enter through your puddle? Would you even try if not forced to? I think not.

 

[Russell797]

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

That's because you are closed minded, and don't want to hear the justification for the EPA. You're all about you.

And others will read my posts and a great many I suspect will agree with me, because we need a strong EPA and most sane people realize that.

 

[Russell797]

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.

How does my vote count when my state gets 11 electoral votes whether I vote or don't vote? How is my vote added to the outcome if I am in the minority of voters in my state? Answer.....it doesn't.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Your vote did not count and neither did mine. My state gets 11 electoral votes no matter if I vote or don't vote, or no matter who I vote for.

Your vote doesn't count only if you don't vote. But you have one legal vote in your state as does every other registered voter in your state. And that one vote has as much clout to determine where your 11 electoral votes will be assigned as anybody else's vote.

I don't know where this notion came from that a vote doesn't count if you're on the losing side of an election. It must come from the same notion that we shouldn't keep score in sporting events so nobody will feel bad for losing. Or that everybody should get the same prize no matter how it comes out.

I blame modern education.

 

[AlbqOwl]

How does my vote count when my state gets 11 electoral votes whether I vote or don't vote? How is my vote added to the outcome if I am in the minority of voters in my state? Answer.....it doesn't.

See my post #258.

 

[TurtleDude]

Do birds frequent your puddle? Can you safely keep contaminants out of the ground water which may enter through your puddle? Would you even try if not forced to? I think not.

how does the EPA get that sort of authority over private citizens. what part of the constitution actually allows that?

 

[Russell797]

Your vote doesn't count only if you don't vote. But you have one legal vote in your state as does every other registered voter in your state. And that one vote has as much clout to determine where your 11 electoral votes will be assigned as anybody else's vote.

I don't know where this notion came from that a vote doesn't count if you're on the losing side of an election. It must come from the same notion that we shouldn't keep score in sporting events so nobody will feel bad for losing. Or that everybody should get the same prize no matter how it comes out.

I blame modern education.

My vote does not count. I go into the voting booth. I pick one of the four choices. That person does not receive my 1 vote. The most they can get is 11 from my state. My vote doesn't count even if have voted for the eventual electoral college winner. My vote does not count if I voted for the looser. The state gets 11 votes whether I vote or don't vote. The state I happen to live in votes for president. I don't.

In any winner takes all vote, the loser has not been considered at all in the end. Their losing vote does not add one little bit to the outcome.

Even the winner in the state has the vote boiled down to some number, so the individual vote no longer exists. That boiled down number, in my case 11, does not change whether I have voted or not. Even if I have voted the EC renders my individual vote meaningless at that point in the process.

 

[Mycroft]

My vote does not count. I go into the voting booth. I pick one of the four choices. That person does not receive my 1 vote. The most they can get is 11 from my state. My vote doesn't count even if have voted for the eventual electoral college winner. My vote does not count if I voted for the looser. The state gets 11 votes whether I vote or don't vote. The state I happen to live in votes for president. I don't.

In any winner takes all vote, the loser has not been considered at all in the end. Their losing vote does not add one little bit to the outcome.

Even the winner in the state has the vote boiled down to some number, so the individual vote no longer exists. That boiled down number, in my case 11, does not change whether I have voted or not. Even if I have voted the EC renders my individual vote meaningless at that point.

The candidate that your State's 11 votes go to IS determined by your vote and everyone else's vote in your State. Your vote counted in determining who got your State's votes.

I know you cannot comprehend this and that's why you still keep thinking your vote didn't count...but that's also why you are still wrong.

 

[coyotedelmar]

That would come out to being no different than a popular vote, you realize that right?

EDIT; Actually that would be worse, because certain high population areas vote overwhelmingly for a particular party.... a proportional system would favor the high population states that snub the other party en masse.

"The Left Coast" would determine the outcome in our elections every year, because the the ratio in those states tends to be really high towards liberals.

Not really, did the math (well did rough math), and Trump still wins 270-263. It's a better system than Republicans in California and Liberals in Texas being worthless when it comes to voting on President. The only states there was a huge advantage to one party was D.C (not technically a state anyways) and West Virginia.

 

[Russell797]

The candidate that your State's 11 votes go to IS determined by your vote and everyone else's vote in your State. Your vote counted in determining who got your State's votes.

I know you cannot comprehend this and that's why you still keep thinking your vote didn't count...but that's also why you are still wrong.

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I comprehend it just fine. The state votes for president....I do not. Right? My vote does not go to the candidate I voted for, it goes to an intermediate step which obliterates it. Do you understand that?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

I tell you what. How about I e-mail the powers in Congress and advise them how you don't like the way we structure our elections in this country and you hold us in contempt as sadly discriminatory. Maybe they could put you on a team to figure out how to change that. Would that make you happy?

I would warn you that they are sometimes really slow to answer e-mails like that.

Sure thing. Here is how it can be changed in the simplest way possible.

One vote per person no matter where your location is in the USA. The candidate with the most votes wins the election while the candidate with the less votes loses the election. Everyone should be fine with that since a football team with the most points at the end of a football game wins not the other team that came from a ''lower populated'' state who has less points then the other team. Everyone agrees with that the football team that got the most points won. So in return to be logically consistent, there should be no problem with applying it specifically to determine who is going to be president.

Either that, or fix the ''electoral college.'' And make sure the calculations are being done properly.

A state with 20M people get's 8 electoral votes fine but that doesn't mean that another state with 10M get's the same amount of electoral votes. It would be 4 electoral votes for example. That's just an example.

 

[AlbqOwl]

My vote does not count. I go into the voting booth. I pick one of the four choices. That person does not receive my 1 vote. The most they can get is 11 from my state. My vote doesn't count even if have voted for the eventual electoral college winner. My vote does not count if I voted for the looser. The state gets 11 votes whether I vote or don't vote. The state I happen to live in votes for president. I don't.

In any winner takes all vote, the loser has not been considered at all in the end. Their losing vote does not add one little bit to the outcome.

Even the winner in the state has the vote boiled down to some number, so the individual vote no longer exists. That boiled down number, in my case 11, does not change whether I have voted or not. Even if I have voted the EC renders my individual vote meaningless at that point in the process.

Gee. It's too bad that yours is the only vote in your entire state whose vote didn't count. I do feel bad for you. Everybody else's vote did count. Those who voted for the winner in your state are happier than those who didn't. But unless you live in a very corrupt state, everybody's vote was counted.

Except for yours. If I were you I would lodge a complaint about that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Sure thing. Here is how it can be changed in the simplest way possible.

One vote per person no matter where your location is in the USA. The candidate with the most votes wins the election while the candidate with the less votes loses the election. Everyone should be fine with that since a football team with the most points at the end of a football game wins not the other team that came from a ''lower populated'' state who has less points then the other team. Everyone agrees with that the football team that got the most points won. So in return to be logically consistent, there should be no problem with applying it specifically to determine who is going to be president.

Either that, or fix the ''electoral college.'' And make sure the calculations are being done properly.

A state with 20M people get's 8 electoral votes fine but that doesn't mean that another state with 10M get's the same amount of electoral votes. It would be 4 electoral votes for example. That's just an example.

Sorry, but I don't want the 1/5th of states that have more population than the other 4/5ths combined having all the power to decide who will be President. That is a very sure way to make sure that anybody who doesn't live in one of those largest populated states has no power whatsoever.

I'll stick with the EC thank you very much even though I have to accept that the person I didn't want will be President a great deal of the time. At least with the EC I have a shot to help elect somebody better.

 

[Caine]

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I comprehend it just fine. The state votes for president....I do not. Right? My vote does not go to the candidate I voted for, it goes to an intermediate step which obliterates it. Do you understand that?

Do you not understand that the purpose of you voting in a Presidential election is to give your state's electoral votes to the candidate of your choice?

 

[KevinKohler]

Yes, and yes.



I'm not even sure why this is up for debate...

 

[Port & Starboard]

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I comprehend it just fine. The state votes for president....I do not. Right? My vote does not go to the candidate I voted for, it goes to an intermediate step which obliterates it. Do you understand that?

You constantly remind me why I thank god that the founding fathers had the foresight to install the electoral college.

They understood that there would be people you who only think about themselves, instead of the union.

The electoral college protects the rest of the country from people like you.


PS: It's not a personal attack, but it is a fact!

 

[Senator Jack]

Yeah.....

Let's allow a handful of states with very populated democrat voting cities have their way with the rest of the republic.

:rofl

Spin move. ROLF ROLF ROLF ROLF!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Master PO]

Spin move. ROLF ROLF ROLF ROLF!!!!!!!!!!

no spin about it!

 

[radcen]

Interesting thread, so far. Predictably, butt-hurt election losers want the EC gone, jubilant election winners defend it. Partisanship, didn't see that coming. :roll:

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Sorry, but I don't want the 1/5th of states that have more population than the other 4/5ths combined having all the power to decide who will be President. That is a very sure way to make sure that anybody who doesn't live in one of those largest populated states has no power whatsoever.

I'll stick with the EC thank you very much even though I have to accept that the person I didn't want will be President a great deal of the time. At least with the EC I have a shot to help elect somebody better.

I'll stick with the "PV" that counts everyone's vote as one vote everyone is on even ground. The fact that some states in your nation are more populated then others doesn't justify making a system where a vote in say North Dakota counts as four or five votes in Texas. That's discrimination to the core comparable to counting blacks as "three/fifths" a person or whatever arbitrary calculations were used back then like they're now in your "EC."

 

[ALiberalModerate]

1) The E.C. was devised as an attempt to balance Congress and the Presidency, and the States and the Federal Government.

2) That was addressed in #193.

3) Your final point sounds an awful lot like condescension, if not that then certainly resentment, toward many of your fellow Kansans because you believe they can't get along without you.
Let's take a look at those points you made.
You say you pay taxes and that supports those in rural Kansas who you say don't pay taxes.
Why is there such a tax system to begin with?
Just what contributions do they make in rural Kansas that you don't make in the city but that benefit you and the rest of the city folk?
What skills do they possess in rural Kansas that you don't possess in the city that benefits you and the rest of the city folk?
Logically then, you must be pretty pissed at the expansion of certain Federal entitlement programs that overwhelmingly benefit citizens in many major cities. Are you upset at that funneling of your taxes?

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that the tax base in the majority of rural areas is insufficient to fund the schools, policing, and infrastructure for those rural areas. Thus tax dollars from urban areas in those states are transferred to those rural areas. I am fine with that. It's necessary.

However, what I am not fine with is rural areas then also getting an outsized amount of political influence compared to urban areas. If you don't have the majority of the people in rural areas, then you should not have the majority of the seats in the legislature simply because of gerrymandering. Moreover, you sure as hell should not have an outsized amount of influence on presidential elections.