I love who people write 100,000 words but never address the original question. I posted the link just to show my source (which you nincompoops complain when a poster doesn't) - I have no interest in the article itself, sorry I didn't make that clear. PLEASE justify one Wyoming voter having more Presidential election power than 18 Michiganders.bmw wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:14 amI tried to read through the entire article, but I just couldn't do it. This guy is a political hack. Just a few points I'd like to address that confirm this:FakeAndyStuart wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 7:52 pmhttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/us/a ... =share-url
Apologies for the long URL, but I think this gets everyone past the paywall.
TL;DR: In the current Electoral College, One Wyoming voter has the same power as 7 Alabamans, or 18 Michiganders, or 59 Californians.
Please explain to me how this can possibly be maintained.
Allow me to translate: He believes Democrats should hold the office of the President in perpetuity and is upset that they have not.The Democratic Party is in the midst of a historic winning streak. In seven of the past eight presidential elections, stretching back to Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory, the Democratic nominee has won the popular vote. Over more than two centuries of American democracy, no party has previously fared so well over such an extended period. Yet the current period is hardly a dominant Democratic age.
Now perhaps the worst example of political hackery:
His claim that this "movement" began in 2008 is complete and utter bullshit. He was born in 1973, so he was more than old enough to remember what happened in 2000 - you know, when Al Gore sued after he lost. This from a Gallup article in July of 2001:A growing number of Republican officials are questioning a basic premise of democracy: That the losers of an election are willing to accept defeat. The roots of the modern election-denier movement stretch back to 2008. When Mr. Obama was running for president and after he won, some of his critics falsely claimed that his victory was illegitimate because he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii.
-17% of Americans believe George W. Bush "stole the election" (nearly all Democrats - just over a third of them)
-52% of blacks believe Bush stole the election
-Only 48% of Americans feel Bush won the election "fair and square" (1/3 believe he won only on a technicality)
-15% say they do not accept Bush as the legitimate president now, but might in the future
-11% of the public says they will never accept Bush as the legitimate president.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/4687/seven ... ident.aspx
Yeah, so don't tell me that this started in 2008 with birtherism. It started in 2000 with a lawsuit from Al Gore after he wouldn't accept the results. And throughout George W. Bush's presidency, there was always a segment of Americans who believed he was illegitimate.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through May 12 at 7:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
US Electoral System is broken..
- FakeAndyStuart
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:07 pm
- Location: MOVED! Now residing in CurmudgeonLand
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
The answer to your question is simple: the system has worked for nearly 250 years. Just because there's been a few results in recent years you may not like isn't an excuse to nuke the system.
And btw - you're the one who wants to change a 250-year-old system. I'd say the burden lies on you to justify changing it, not on me to justify keeping it. I gave a very specific and detailed proposal on how I'd tweak it if it were up to me.
As an aside, I don't buy your premise that one Wyoming voter has more Presidential election power than 18 Michiganders. By my math, Michigan has 17x the population of Wyoming, and 5.3x the number of Electors. That works out to roughly 3-to-1, not 18-to-1.
And btw - you're the one who wants to change a 250-year-old system. I'd say the burden lies on you to justify changing it, not on me to justify keeping it. I gave a very specific and detailed proposal on how I'd tweak it if it were up to me.
As an aside, I don't buy your premise that one Wyoming voter has more Presidential election power than 18 Michiganders. By my math, Michigan has 17x the population of Wyoming, and 5.3x the number of Electors. That works out to roughly 3-to-1, not 18-to-1.
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 6508
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
Not often you spit facts, but you did here. Bravo.bmw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 12:48 amThe answer to your question is simple: the system has worked for nearly 250 years. Just because there's been a few results in recent years you may not like isn't an excuse to nuke the system.
And btw - you're the one who wants to change a 250-year-old system. I'd say the burden lies on you to justify changing it, not on me to justify keeping it. I gave a very specific and detailed proposal on how I'd tweak it if it were up to me.
As an aside, I don't buy your premise that one Wyoming voter has more Presidential election power than 18 Michiganders. By my math, Michigan has 17x the population of Wyoming, and 5.3x the number of Electors. That works out to roughly 3-to-1, not 18-to-1.
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
President Samuel Tilden would like a word with you.bmw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 12:48 amThe answer to your question is simple: the system has worked for nearly 250 years. Just because there's been a few results in recent years you may not like isn't an excuse to nuke the system.
And btw - you're the one who wants to change a 250-year-old system. I'd say the burden lies on you to justify changing it, not on me to justify keeping it. I gave a very specific and detailed proposal on how I'd tweak it if it were up to me.
As an aside, I don't buy your premise that one Wyoming voter has more Presidential election power than 18 Michiganders. By my math, Michigan has 17x the population of Wyoming, and 5.3x the number of Electors. That works out to roughly 3-to-1, not 18-to-1.
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
The election of 1876 is literally the only example whereby someone won a majority of the vote but lost the election.
If you want to use that as the basis for challenging my stance, then I would perhaps offer an alternative to my plan for reform: You win the Presidency if you crack the 50% number, but the winner is determined by the Electoral College if nobody reaches 50%.
If you want to use that as the basis for challenging my stance, then I would perhaps offer an alternative to my plan for reform: You win the Presidency if you crack the 50% number, but the winner is determined by the Electoral College if nobody reaches 50%.
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
Potentially I can sign onto that. Are you defining 2000 and 2016 as pluralities rather than majorities?bmw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:29 amThe election of 1876 is literally the only example whereby someone won a majority of the vote but lost the election.
If you want to use that as the basis for challenging my stance, then I would perhaps offer an alternative to my plan for reform: You win the Presidency if you crack the 50% number, but the winner is determined by the Electoral College if nobody reaches 50%.
- craig11152
- Posts: 2062
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:15 am
- Location: Ann Arbor
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
Wyoming gets closer to $1.39 I think but in any case they are not at the top of the list. More like ninth.FakeAndyStuart wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:15 amAllow me to elaborate..
Wyoming gets more than 150% return in federal funding compared to what is paid in federal income tax.
18 states are " living off the federal government teat" so Wyoming isn't alone. But explain to me how 2 senators out of 100 and 1 representative out of 435 managed to pull off that over representation thing you describe to get all that money.FakeAndyStuart wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:15 amAllow me to elaborate..
Wyoming is living off the federal government teat, and got there by the overrepresentation of their population in federal government.
I no longer directly engage trolls
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
Correct. 50% +1 majority only. Just like how run-off thresholds work where they're used.Rate This wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:33 amPotentially I can sign onto that. Are you defining 2000 and 2016 as pluralities rather than majorities?bmw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:29 amThe election of 1876 is literally the only example whereby someone won a majority of the vote but lost the election.
If you want to use that as the basis for challenging my stance, then I would perhaps offer an alternative to my plan for reform: You win the Presidency if you crack the 50% number, but the winner is determined by the Electoral College if nobody reaches 50%.
The only problem I might have with allowing such an exception is that this may lead to the 2 major parties putting pressure on 3rd party candidates to not run - in particular, the Green Party would be no friend of the Democrat party.
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
I don’t think Libertarians would help Republicans much for that matter. Interesting premise. How would you feel about ranked choice as a runoff?bmw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 11:14 amCorrect. 50% +1 majority only. Just like how run-off thresholds work where they're used.Rate This wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:33 amPotentially I can sign onto that. Are you defining 2000 and 2016 as pluralities rather than majorities?bmw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:29 amThe election of 1876 is literally the only example whereby someone won a majority of the vote but lost the election.
If you want to use that as the basis for challenging my stance, then I would perhaps offer an alternative to my plan for reform: You win the Presidency if you crack the 50% number, but the winner is determined by the Electoral College if nobody reaches 50%.
The only problem I might have with allowing such an exception is that this may lead to the 2 major parties putting pressure on 3rd party candidates to not run - in particular, the Green Party would be no friend of the Democrat party.
Re: US Electoral System is broken..
Well if the consensus is that it is easier for Republicans than Democrats to win the Electoral College with < 50% of the vote, then Dems are hurt more by 3rd parties than are the Republicans in a 50% threshold system that reverts to the Electoral College otherwise.
Ranked Choice is too convoluted - especially for a Presidential election where you have 2 major candidates and rarely have anybody else in even a distant 3rd. Primaries already do what Ranked Choice would otherwise do - narrow each party down to 1 candidate. If you implemented Ranked Choice, you'd have candidates using the primary process to simply get name recognition, and then after losing the primaries, would run in the general election as 3rd parties. I think it would be a mess.
Ranked Choice is too convoluted - especially for a Presidential election where you have 2 major candidates and rarely have anybody else in even a distant 3rd. Primaries already do what Ranked Choice would otherwise do - narrow each party down to 1 candidate. If you implemented Ranked Choice, you'd have candidates using the primary process to simply get name recognition, and then after losing the primaries, would run in the general election as 3rd parties. I think it would be a mess.