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.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
One Person, One Vote
One Person, One Vote
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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 2778
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am
Re: One Person, One Vote
Here! Here!
Amen, brother!
Amen, brother!
- audiophile
- Posts: 9236
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: One Person, One Vote
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!!
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Where the sun no longer shines
Re: One Person, One Vote
Canada can take NYaudiophile 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.
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.
Re: One Person, One Vote
So 60 million Americans should not have a voice?Y M Ionhere wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:01 pmCanada can take NYaudiophile 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.
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.
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: One Person, One Vote
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?Honeyman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:30 pmSo 60 million Americans should not have a voice?Y M Ionhere wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:01 pmCanada can take NYaudiophile 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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:07 pm
- Location: go ahead, I'm listening
Re: One Person, One Vote
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 2778
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am
Re: One Person, One Vote
The people won’t put up with yet another president who lost the popular vote becoming president.
- audiophile
- Posts: 9236
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: One Person, One Vote
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!!
Re: One Person, One Vote
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.
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.
Re: One Person, One Vote
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.
- audiophile
- Posts: 9236
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: One Person, One Vote
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!!
Re: One Person, One Vote
So you would be open to the Maine and Nebraska models which have produced split results?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.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Re: One Person, One Vote
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.
Re: One Person, One Vote
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?