{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/3/2017 7:29:35 PM
35
I'm no Conservative but I don't support the abolition of the Electoral College. I don't think entire elections should be determined by large, Democratic, cities that are out of touch with the rest of the country.
Let's look at it from a smaller scale. I live in NY. Practically the entire state is red by county outside of Albany county and those near the city. Yet it is always considered a blue state simply because of the population of NYC. People in NYC do not share the same values as those outside of the city.
Often times, legislation is made because of beliefs held in the city alone that can have a negative effect on the rest of the state.
This is similar to what we would see if the electoral college were to be abolished. We can't switch things to a popular vote because we can't have large, Democratic cities determining the outcome for the entire country.
Obviously Democrats are pushing for this after the election, however all it would do is ensure that Democrats would win every time. To pretend that isn't the goal of pushing for the popular vote to be in place but rather that it would be the most fair system is a ruse.
English
-
The city is better, we have pigeons and mutant rats.
-
love how country folk always think its the city that's out of touch. maybe its the backwards country trash that need to adapt?
-
Editado por Flynn: 5/4/2017 11:47:48 AMI lived in NYC for about 10 years and now I live upstate. I have first hand experience of the mindset of people there. What I love is how people just assume shit because they can't seem to think past their own ignorance.
-
I see what you are saying but that's why we have Congress. Between the House and the Senate the states are accurately represented. For president, it shouldn't matter. The president represents the whole country which means every vote should count equally. Now I'm not really for a popular vote but I understand that it would be the most accurate representation of the will of the people. I'm more for a change to the electoral college. Remove winner-take-all and make each state proportional. It would encourage more people to vote and be a more accurate representation of the will of the people.
-
Also with popular vote voter fraud would be easier on a wide scale
-
[quote]I'm no Conservative but I don't support the abolition of the Electoral College. I don't think entire elections should be determined by large, Democratic, cities that are out of touch with the rest of the country.[/quote]Have you considered that maybe it's the rural folks who are out of touch with the rest of the country? [quote]Obviously Democrats are pushing for this after the election, however all it would do is ensure that Democrats would win every time[/quote]If "your guy" can't win if all votes are equal, maybe there's something wrong with your candidate, party, and platform.
-
You really are ignorant. [quote][quote]I'm no Conservative but I don't support the abolition of the Electoral College. I don't think entire elections should be determined by large, Democratic, cities that are out of touch with the rest of the country.[/quote]Have you considered that maybe it's the rural folks who are out of touch with the rest of the country? [quote]Obviously Democrats are pushing for this after the election, however all it would do is ensure that Democrats would win every time[/quote]If "your guy" can't win if all votes are equal, maybe there's something wrong with your candidate, party, and platform.[/quote]
-
Popular vote isn't the most fair system, as Democratic pundits like to claim. It simply ensures a much higher chance of a Democrat winning with the way things are in our country.
-
[quote]Popular vote isn't the most fair system, as Democratic pundits like to claim. It simply ensures a much higher chance of a Democrat winning with the way things are in our country.[/quote]Maybe that's because Democrat policies are supported by more people? The system isn't rigged under a popular vote. Everyone gets the same value to their vote. If your guy loses when everything else is equal, maybe your guy just sucks.
-
[quote][quote]Popular vote isn't the most fair system, as Democratic pundits like to claim. It simply ensures a much higher chance of a Democrat winning with the way things are in our country.[/quote]Maybe that's because Democrat policies are supported by more people? The system isn't rigged under a popular vote. Everyone gets the same value to their vote. If your guy loses when everything else is equal, maybe your guy just sucks.[/quote] Will of the majority does not equal good max
-
Interesting argument considering your "guy" lost. If you can't win the swing states and get the electoral votes you need, then maybe your guy sucks.
-
[quote]Interesting argument considering your "guy" lost. If you can't win the swing states and get the electoral votes you need, then maybe your guy sucks.[/quote]No, my "guy" won the popular vote by millions of votes, but because conservative votes carry more weight than liberal votes in our system, my "guy" lost the election. The electoral college does not reflect the will of the people. If the only way your guy can win is by tipping the scales and making things unequal, that's a problem.
-
Millions of illegal votes.
-
[quote]Millions of illegal votes.[/quote] Bad argument I mean it's true I know I live in California however there's no solid proof so it backfires as an argument
-
[quote]Millions of illegal votes.[/quote]Source?
-
It's like you're not even reading what I say and are going to respond however you want, anyway. I'll try to put it as simply as I can this time (I thought the NY example spelled it out pretty clearly). Large, like-minded, Democratic cities do not represent the will of everyone. Period.
-
Here's the thing, though. Right now, those cities are able to swing the ENTIRE power of a state one way or another. Under a straight popular vote, they would only count for the actual votes in them. So, say...55% of a state's population is in the cities. If, by some act of gods or man, all the voting people voted one way, then the candidate gets 55% of the state's population, while the opponent gets the other 45% or whatever they won.
-
[quote]It's like you're not even reading what I say and are going to respond however you want, anyway. I'll try to put it as simply as I can this time (I thought the NY example spelled it out pretty clearly). Large, like-minded, Democratic cities do not represent the will of everyone. Period.[/quote] Well said
-
He's not going to get it, it's max, best to move on and let him live in his own little world.
-
[quote]It's like you're not even reading what I say and are going to respond however you want, anyway. I'll try to put it as simply as I can this time (I thought the NY example spelled it out pretty clearly). Large, like-minded, Democratic cities do not represent the will of everyone. Period.[/quote]You keep thinking about this within the confines of cities. There are no barriers in the popular vote. My vote in Orange County, CA [a very red area of CA] counts the same as someone in Los Angeles, counts the same as someone in Albuquerque, NM, counts the same as someone in Anchorage, AK, counts the same as someone in Birmingham, AL, etc etc etc. The winner of the popular vote won't be decided by the most populous cities - it will be decided by all people. If a Democrat wins, it will be because they received votes from all of those cities listed above, not just the electoral votes from blue states. If a Republican wins, it will be because they received votes from all of those cities above, not just the electoral votes from red states. Popular vote gives equal value to red voters in blue states, as well as blue voters in red states.
-
You keep thinking about this within the confines of "equality". The entire goal of the electoral college is to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majority rule. It's been successful for 200 years. There's no need to change it simply because your candidate won the popular vote and lost the electoral on two, recent occasions.
-
[quote]You keep thinking about this within the confines of "equality". The entire goal of the electoral college is to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majority rule. It's been successful for 200 years. There's no need to change it simply because your candidate won the popular vote and lost the electoral on two, recent occasions.[/quote]The state's representation is in the House of Representatives and the Senate. States will still be represented if we use the popular vote for national elections.
-
Editado por BlackMormon: 5/3/2017 11:52:46 PMYou know better than this Max. You're basically asking why conservatives don't want to give up any practical chance at the whitehouse.. Then just tell conservatives that if they wan to win they need to be more like liberals. That way your side wins no matter what. You know why the system was designed this way.
-
[quote]You know better than this Max. You're basically asking why conservatives don't want to give up any practical chance at the whitehouse.. Then just tell conservatives that if they wan to win they need to be more like liberals. That way your side wins no matter what. You know why the system was designed this way.[/quote]If the only way conservatives have a chance at the White House is by giving unfair advantages to conservative voters, perhaps there's something wrong with the conservative candidates and platforms.
-
The two parties are a result of the system not the cause of it.
