Guard Dog Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I'd love to see the winner-take-all system go away. If it were up to me I'd still keep the electors based on congressional districts. Each elector is bound to the results of their district not the entire state. No more of the faithless elector crap. It's past time the electors stopped being actual people. 2 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Hurlshort Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 In California, there are over 500,000 people per electoral college vote. in Wyoming, there are over 140,000 people per electoral college vote. That is a pretty massive difference in voting power. Voters are marginalized in the more populated states, even with the big chunk of electoral college votes they get. That being said, I totally agree the winner take all system is dumb. But if you really want to give everyone a say, get rid of the electoral college all together and of with a popular vote system. Of course, that will dramatically increase the voting power of certain states, because certain states have way more people.
smjjames Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 @Guard Dog: I haven't heard of Austin Petersen before, but I've definetly heard of Justin Amash before, but I forget from where. As for people voting for the Libertarians, might be easier if the candidate didn't turn people off with general 'head in the sand'ness and being ignorant about stuff he should know. Plus I was voting not-Trump.
injurai Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 The Californian people aren't really that marginalized, seeing how strongly their state government represents them. It's so odd that they would try to increase the federal governments power that only represents them less. Honestly though, California wouldn't be half as liberal as it is if it wasn't for their industries and access to the coast. The biggest problem with the electoral college system is how districts are gerrymandered. 1
smjjames Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Gerrymandering doesn't affect the electoral college vote as it goes by the number of congressional districts (which is a function of total population) and the votes in the whole state. Gerrymandered or not, the number of congressional districts still has to reflect the total population.
redneckdevil Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 In California, there are over 500,000 people per electoral college vote. in Wyoming, there are over 140,000 people per electoral college vote. That is a pretty massive difference in voting power. Voters are marginalized in the more populated states, even with the big chunk of electoral college votes they get. That being said, I totally agree the winner take all system is dumb. But if you really want to give everyone a say, get rid of the electoral college all together and of with a popular vote system. Of course, that will dramatically increase the voting power of certain states, because certain states have way more people. Yes it marginalizes in a certain degree so that other states still have a chance to have a say. It's about equality for all States. Think of it as a power CAP. U still have more say (more total of electoral votes that state can cast), but it prevents a monopoly. I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right?
Wrath of Dagon Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 California: https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/08/30/l-a-city-council-votes-to-rename-columbus-day/ "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
injurai Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Congressional districting is exactly the problem, which is different than county polling.
smjjames Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Probably not the best example to use redneckdevil, given the whole deal with politics, but you make a point regarding majority and minority. California: https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/08/30/l-a-city-council-votes-to-rename-columbus-day/ Cute, and yes, California....
Guard Dog Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 @Guard Dog: I haven't heard of Austin Petersen before, but I've definetly heard of Justin Amash before, but I forget from where. As for people voting for the Libertarians, might be easier if the candidate didn't turn people off with general 'head in the sand'ness and being ignorant about stuff he should know. Plus I was voting not-Trump. No arguments there. But it didn't matter who they ran I would have voted and asked others to do the same. Like I said it was about 5% rather than winning the election. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Guard Dog Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 In California, there are over 500,000 people per electoral college vote. in Wyoming, there are over 140,000 people per electoral college vote. That is a pretty massive difference in voting power. Voters are marginalized in the more populated states, even with the big chunk of electoral college votes they get. That being said, I totally agree the winner take all system is dumb. But if you really want to give everyone a say, get rid of the electoral college all together and of with a popular vote system. Of course, that will dramatically increase the voting power of certain states, because certain states have way more people. As someone living in a state that would be marginalized I would never agree to a straight popular vote. The executive branch would forever more become mayor of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Boston etc. Unless of course the President goes back to being just the President and limited to the enumerated powers in Article 2. But I doubt we'll ever get the genie back in the bottle. More is the pity. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Gromnir Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) I'd love to see the winner-take-all system go away. If it were up to me I'd still keep the electors based on congressional districts. Each elector is bound to the results of their district not the entire state. No more of the faithless elector crap. It's past time the electors stopped being actual people. as a libertarian, gd should be, at the very least, conflicted. is the individual STATES which decide how to apportion votes. maine and nebraska, for instance, is not winner-take-all. in the aforementioned states, 2 electoral votes go to overall state winner, and rest of votes go to the winning candidate based on victory in popular vote in each district. can't bring 'bout universal change w/o abridging state rights. HA! Good Fun! Edited August 31, 2017 by Gromnir "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
smjjames Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) There is a thing going around (I forget the name, but it was mentioned a lot during the election) which uses an arcane loophole (which is likely how Maine and Nebraska did what they did) that allows the states to come up with and agree on an amendment to how they portion out the electoral votes, it's an agreement to poportion out the electoral votes by the popular vote or something like that. A whole bunch of states have already signed on to it, but they're mostly Democrat leaning states and the threshold hasn't been reached yet. There may be one or two Republican leaning states that have signed on or close to doing so. Edited August 31, 2017 by smjjames
Hurlshort Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right? Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right. You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me. Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history. 1
smjjames Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right? Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right. You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me. Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history. @bolded We did? Yeesh. It did get challenged right up to the Supreme Court though. Though yeah, we have a reputation of being a testing ground for ideas, "As California goes, so goes the Nation". I agree with the problem mainly being weak Republican leadership and stuff, after all, it used to be heavily Republican for decades.
Agiel Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right? Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right. You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me. Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history. There also seems to be a mistaken perception that the state's universities are universally dens of far left iniquity. For what it's worth most people in the other Calstates and UCs (LA, SB, SD, etc.) think people who go to UC Berkeley and moreso Santa Cruz are lefty loons too. Edited August 31, 2017 by Agiel 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Hurlshort Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Seriously, we have some of the best Ag schools in the country and I'm guessing they've got a pretty strong Young Republican demographic.
Guard Dog Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I'd love to see the winner-take-all system go away. If it were up to me I'd still keep the electors based on congressional districts. Each elector is bound to the results of their district not the entire state. No more of the faithless elector crap. It's past time the electors stopped being actual people. as a libertarian, gd should be, at the very least, conflicted. is the individual STATES which decide how to apportion votes. maine and nebraska, for instance, is not winner-take-all. in the aforementioned states, 2 electoral votes go to overall state winner, and rest of votes go to the winning candidate based on victory in popular vote in each district. can't bring 'bout universal change w/o abridging state rights. HA! Good Fun! I said if it were up to me. It ain't! I'm Libertarian because I'm closer to that than any other political party. I'm not 100% libertarian. Probably 85% at best. Anyone who is 100% anything really ought to be doing some thinking on their own. 3 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
redneckdevil Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right? Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right. You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me. Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history. True, sadly I have no way with words. How bout I say this about the marginalization. I'll say it doesn't because it's not a system to grant power to the majority, it's a system that grants power to everyone. To do so, there is a limit of resources and because of that there is a cap to prevent total power. So states with much bigger populations may seem like they are being marginalized, when in reality they have basically surpassed the high score long ago and get no higher. It's not a system to reward high scores (even though higher population does grant u more power than others), it's a system designed to keep everyone playing instead of one or a few people to keep deciding what game we gonna play. Make more sense? 1
Guard Dog Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right? Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right. You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me. Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history. True, sadly I have no way with words. How bout I say this about the marginalization. I'll say it doesn't because it's not a system to grant power to the majority, it's a system that grants power to everyone. To do so, there is a limit of resources and because of that there is a cap to prevent total power. So states with much bigger populations may seem like they are being marginalized, when in reality they have basically surpassed the high score long ago and get no higher. It's not a system to reward high scores (even though higher population does grant u more power than others), it's a system designed to keep everyone playing instead of one or a few people to keep deciding what game we gonna play. Make more sense? Agree. Except for one thing. California can have more electoral votes if they want them. All they have to so is stop running off the middle class. They are losing votes, not gaining them. If I was Hurlshot I'd have packed up the family and headed east long ago. 1 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Hurlshort Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Agree. Except for one thing. California can have more electoral votes if they want them. All they have to so is stop running off the middle class. They are losing votes, not gaining them. If I was Hurlshot I'd have packed up the family and headed east long ago. Hey, you try and convince the Garlic Queen to leave Gilroy! My wife will have none of it. 2
Gromnir Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right? Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right. You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me. Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history. True, sadly I have no way with words. How bout I say this about the marginalization. I'll say it doesn't because it's not a system to grant power to the majority, it's a system that grants power to everyone. To do so, there is a limit of resources and because of that there is a cap to prevent total power. So states with much bigger populations may seem like they are being marginalized, when in reality they have basically surpassed the high score long ago and get no higher. It's not a system to reward high scores (even though higher population does grant u more power than others), it's a system designed to keep everyone playing instead of one or a few people to keep deciding what game we gonna play. Make more sense? Agree. Except for one thing. California can have more electoral votes if they want them. All they have to so is stop running off the middle class. They are losing votes, not gaining them. If I was Hurlshot I'd have packed up the family and headed east long ago. population in ca has increased steadily (+5.36% since 2010), and while it is not top ten for rate of increase, it still beats, amongst many others, tennessee (+4.81% since 2010... 'ccording to us census bureau). *shrug* the perception o' ca rare matches the reality and the political identity o' the state is one such misapprehension. get out of a few o' the major urban areas and you is gonna see much conservative. largest industry in CA is still agriculture, and the farmers and rural californians are much tending to be conservative voters. the community where Gromnir lives, near sacramento, had overwhelming numbers o' trump signage visible during the 2016 elections. gated community with a significant number o' former military folks. etc. sure, the overall population skews towards liberal, but is no shortage o' extreme conservative communities for those looking for likeminded folks. 'corse, things have changed considerable since late 80s when we first arrived in ca. today we do have educated friends (more than a couple) who honest believe all crazy/wrong people is conservative. sure, not all conservatives is bad people, says our liberal friends, but all the nutters are voting republican. really? back in the late 80s, the bay area, humboldt county, a few outlier hippie communes and a handful o' coastal/urban neighborhoods in so cal were genuine liberal bastions, but the state as a whole were hardly a liberal wonderland. even when we had democrat majorities, it were hardly an overwhelming majority. in recent years, conservative has become a dirty word in many locations 'round the state. even so, the reason for leaving ca is not politics per se. you wanna live in a community o' like-minded conservatives in ca and you not need look hard to do so. move less than 50 miles inland from the coast and places such as davis become almost islands in a conservative sea. sure, folks leaving ca will bemoan the politics, but the real reason for most people leaving the loopy state is the cost o' living... and ca cost o' living were disproportionate high compared to the rest o' the country even when the conservatives were in charge in the 80s and 90s. better job prospects and lower cost o' living has resulted in a kinda mini-exodus from ca, but overall growth rather is still top 20... and better than tn. HA! Good Fun! ps the sierra nevadas is superior in all ways to the smoky mountains (tongue-in-cheek), and the tallest mountain in the contiguous 48 is in ca's sierra nevadas, not the rockies. ansel adams came to ca to take a few photos o' the sierras. stuck around for the 75 years. 2 "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Guard Dog Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Hey everyone. Remember when someone said "when Ben & Guard Dog agree on something we should listen"? It just happened again. 1 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Volourn Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 "The reality is it can be quite conservative" L0L DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
HoonDing Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 "The reality is it can be quite conservative" The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Recommended Posts