Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.

Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.

One Person, One Vote

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
Deleted User 12047

One Person, One Vote

Unread post by Deleted User 12047 »

Even Ken Starr, the defender of the President during the Impeachment trial, brought this up today. One person, one vote. Valid in all elections EXCEPT Presidential. In electing a President, one person’s vote is NOT equal to another’s. A voter in Wyoming or Idaho has much more impact and is worth much more than a voter in California or Texas.

Image

The comment below the image (This is from Facebook) doesn’t hold water. How does a policy benefit one state rather than another? Imagine if the vote for governor of Michigan was done with an “electoral college” method. So a voter in the UP was worth 7 times more than a voter in Grand Rapids. Doesn’t make sense.

Actually, the Electoral College was put into place to protect slave states vs. free states. (Google it.). And it’s time for it to go.
screen glare
Posts: 2778
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by screen glare »

Here! Here!

Amen, brother!
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by audiophile »

Completely disagree and if you want to abolish that, then states should be able to leave the union.
Last edited by audiophile on Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Y M Ionhere
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Where the sun no longer shines

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by Y M Ionhere »

audiophile wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:57 pm Completely disagree and it you want to abolish that, then states should be able to leave the union.
Canada can take NY
Who cares who takes California.

Im really trying to come up with anything nice to say about NY and think it just drags down the rest of the country.

Both are pretty good reasons as to why the EC needs to exist. Neither represents much of the country but would determine all elections.
User avatar
Honeyman
Posts: 6904
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by Honeyman »

Y M Ionhere wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:01 pm
audiophile wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:57 pm Completely disagree and it you want to abolish that, then states should be able to leave the union.
Canada can take NY
Who cares who takes California.

Im really trying to come up with anything nice to say about NY and think it just drags down the rest of the country.

Both are pretty good reasons as to why the EC needs to exist. Neither represents much of the country but would determine all elections.
So 60 million Americans should not have a voice?
The censorship king from out of state.
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by Rate This »

Honeyman wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:30 pm
Y M Ionhere wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:01 pm
audiophile wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:57 pm Completely disagree and it you want to abolish that, then states should be able to leave the union.
Canada can take NY
Who cares who takes California.

Im really trying to come up with anything nice to say about NY and think it just drags down the rest of the country.

Both are pretty good reasons as to why the EC needs to exist. Neither represents much of the country but would determine all elections.
So 60 million Americans should not have a voice?
Why should 30% of the population be able to tell the other 70% what to do? Why does that make a lick of sense when it’s not what most people want?

That 60 million is the same number of Americans that voted for Trump and 3 million less than voted for Hillary... New York and California actually represent the two biggest pieces of the country... it’s where the people are... the sea of red map (not the Trump doctored one but the real one that is a bit less red) is mostly red where there are hardly any people so they need all that land area just to be barely competitive...

What abolishing the electoral college via constitutional amendment would do is cause the Republicans to compete with ideas rather than rigging elections and doing all kinds of shenanigans to eek out victories... they’d have to win over the entire country and not an ever increasingly hostile and extreme base... one that is shrinking by the year and will soon render them a regional party and eventually irrelevant unless they change... abolishing the electoral college would actually be to their benefit...

In the meantime we have the workaround that is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in which states pledge their delegates to the national winner regardless of how their individual state votes...
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
tapeisrolling
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: go ahead, I'm listening

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by tapeisrolling »

17 States can elect the President.
IF California had the same ratio of people to electoral vote as WY it would have 270 votes by its self.
People count, cows and corn don't.

Fun fact... DC has more people than 3 other States and they don't get an electoral vote.
screen glare
Posts: 2778
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by screen glare »

The people won’t put up with yet another president who lost the popular vote becoming president.
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by audiophile »

Tough beans, 38 states would never ratify a change. So dream on.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by bmw »

If you're going to eliminate the Electoral College, you might as well also eliminate all 50 sates and we can just become one big country governed by a set of federal laws.

The whole idea behind the Electoral College is that each individual state, as an entity, has input into who runs one of the 3 branches of the federal government - the very government that exerts ever-increasing control over how the state is to be run.

One's individual voice is heard through his/her representative in the House of Representatives.

Clearly some people posting in here aren't well-versed in the concept of federalism.

EDIT - that said, I AM open to the idea of electoral votes being proportionately allocated within each state - specifically, that the winner of the popular vote in each state gets 2 electoral votes and the remaining electoral votes are allocated proportionately based on the percentage of popular vote received within the state.
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by Bryce »

The electoral college is there for much the same reason that each state has two Senator's regardless of size or population.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by audiophile »

Stop it Bryce, you are making sense.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by Rate This »

bmw wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 11:30 am If you're going to eliminate the Electoral College, you might as well also eliminate all 50 sates and we can just become one big country governed by a set of federal laws.

The whole idea behind the Electoral College is that each individual state, as an entity, has input into who runs one of the 3 branches of the federal government - the very government that exerts ever-increasing control over how the state is to be run.

One's individual voice is heard through his/her representative in the House of Representatives.

Clearly some people posting in here aren't well-versed in the concept of federalism.

EDIT - that said, I AM open to the idea of electoral votes being proportionately allocated within each state - specifically, that the winner of the popular vote in each state gets 2 electoral votes and the remaining electoral votes are allocated proportionately based on the percentage of popular vote received within the state.
So you would be open to the Maine and Nebraska models which have produced split results?
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by bmw »

Rate This wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:12 pm So you would be open to the Maine and Nebraska models which have produced split results?
Kind of. The main difference is that I wouldn't allocate the proportional electoral votes on a per-District basis. Rather, I would allocate them as a percentage of the state-wide vote totals. This avoids the issue of gerrymandering.

The Electoral College directly mirrors the House + Senate combined in terms of number of electors per state. As such, I think that in the interest of mirroring that as much as possible, only 100 of the Electors should be at-large. The remaining electors should be proportionally allocated.

I've proposed this several times in here before and even a few liberal regulars were ok with the idea. I think it is the perfect compromise.
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: One Person, One Vote

Unread post by bmw »

Bryce wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 1:09 pm The electoral college is there for much the same reason that each state has two Senator's regardless of size or population.
Just curious though - wouldn't you agree that to the extent that a state gets the same number of electors as their total number of Senators + House members that allocation should be the same? 2 per state as take-all, and the rest either per-District or proportionally allocated?
Post Reply