User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Pros/cons of still having the Electoral College Page 1 [2], Prev  
GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17811 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"it takes massive over-representation away from Cali Dems, but gives it to Cali Repubs, who have never had ANY representation whatsoever."


1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988. So in 6 of the last 13, California Republicans did ok.

Pete Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger also did ok, and quite recently.

4/2/2019 4:16:26 PM

synapse
play so hard
57123 Posts
user info
edit post

pretty sure they have a handful of representatives in congress too

4/2/2019 4:28:58 PM

HCH
All American
3534 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Actually, that's wrong. Tired yet?"


AKshUaLLy!!

Quote :
"Maine and Nebraska have adapted a different approach. Using the 'congressional district method', these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote. "

4/2/2019 4:41:46 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51950 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^ If you've got to go back 50 years to balance out the most recent 30, that's not a good sign for your argument, lol. That also ignores the population shifts that have occurred in the last 50 years, which are both the foundation for the Electoral College and also the reason that California will remain red for the foreseeable future.

^^ And California has 2 reliably Dem senators. Both have next-to-nothing to do with representation in a Presidential election.

4/2/2019 4:46:35 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
27454 Posts
user info
edit post

^^he said that in like the next sentence? And that doesn't describe what you said, dividing electoral vote proportional to popular vote?

Quote :
" If you want the US to move to a direct democracy, that's a fine argument to make, "


I want the US to move to direct democracy for presidential elections. I thought that was the whole point of this thread, didn't know I needed to explain that.

Quote :
"^ You can't just gloss over the fact that less populated states (that I poorly shorthanded as "rural," which is far more applicable today than it was then) refused to sign on to a system which would run roughshod over them."


You don't think less populated states are mostly run over NOW? Their votes technically mean a little more, but after primaries, how much do candidates focus on small states?? Direct democracy would mean more focus campaigning in cities but would also mean candidates need to expand beyond swing states. Candidates would have to hit a more diverse cross section of the country instead of spending all their time in Florida and Ohio.

4/2/2019 5:01:57 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51950 Posts
user info
edit post

Considering that Republicans currently can't hope to win a national election without the support of less populated states, no, I don't think they are being run completely over. Is anyone saying "gee, I wonder what Montana thinks about this?" Of course not.

The notion that candidates would appeal to a more diverse cross section of the country with a direct vote is preposterous. Why the hell would anyone give two shits about the 40 people in Montana and Nebraska? The appeal will be made more and more to urban areas exclusively, with zero concern for rural areas because they don't have as many voters. Candidates will move from NYC to Philly to Chicago to LA to SF, and that's it. They might throw in a few trips to Miami and Houston just for shits.

Much of this is due to the entrenchment of the 2-party system, but a move to direct election of the president would make that candidates for that office focus solely on populated areas.

Also, being a direct democracy for the leader of a republic is a bit dumb. Like, mustang parts in a camaro dumb.

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 5:42 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2019 5:24:56 PM

dtownral
All American
24463 Posts
user info
edit post

50 years ago isnt a long time ago for something that only happens every 4 years

4/2/2019 5:36:12 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
27454 Posts
user info
edit post

Trump would still win if you removed
Nebraska
Wyoming
N Dakota
S Dakota
Montana
Alaska
Idaho
Wv


NY and LA are basically ignored in terms of chasing the votes, seems like having candidates care about our economic and population centers would be a good thing?

Also there were 120 million votes cast last election. The STATES of CA, NY, ill, and PA are only 25% of that. If you assume those 5 cities are their states entire voting population, you stili have 75% of the country to sell to.

4/2/2019 5:49:10 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51950 Posts
user info
edit post

When it's 7 of the last 7 and you've got to go back that far to get 6 to make it look even, with two of those being a celebrity from the state... yeah...

^ 2016 was an aberration. No one reasonably thought he could pull off MI, PA, and WI. The point stands.

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2019 5:49:44 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
27454 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"No one reasonably thought he could pull off MI, PA, and WI. "


Ah I see now. This whole argument was an elaborate April Fool's joke. Well sir, you got me!

4/2/2019 6:04:47 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17811 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"If you've got to go back 50 years to balance out the most recent 30, that's not a good sign for your argument, lol."


What do you think my argument was, exactly? That California is a hotly-contested purple state? No.

You said: "Cali Repubs have never had ANY representation whatsoever."

My argument was that your sentence was stupid and wrong.

Speaking of stupid and wrong:

Quote :
"Also, being a direct democracy for the leader of a republic is a bit dumb."


In a direct democracy, people vote on policy issues directly. In a republic, people elect leaders to decide on policy issues. There is nothing in the definition of republic that mandates having an intermediate tier of electors. There is nothing about abolishing the electoral college that would lead to direct democracy. This entire line of argument is complete, 100%, irredeemable garbage.

[Edited on April 3, 2019 at 7:37 AM. Reason : ]

4/3/2019 7:37:34 AM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51950 Posts
user info
edit post

as you quibble over obvious hyperbole, we're still stuck with California Republicans having no representation in Presidential elections, with California being able to actually give it to them, while it complains about not having proper representation in Presidential elections...

I would have more respect for the arguments if they just said what they really meant: "We think getting rid of the EC would make it more likely that Democrats would get elected." That would be preferable to hiding behind BS arguments like "it's undemocratic" and "we're not fairly represented while we deny that representation to others."

4/3/2019 11:42:00 AM

dtownral
All American
24463 Posts
user info
edit post

how are you still struggling with concept of states switching at the same time

4/3/2019 11:52:06 AM

moron
All American
31516 Posts
user info
edit post

His goal is solving fairness for Republicans in California.

Burro's goal is not solving fairness in our national presidential election system. He's just in his own world... I guess it's the classical "Strawman Argument".

4/3/2019 12:03:54 PM

synapse
play so hard
57123 Posts
user info
edit post

I love how Burro is trying to call out others for their partisanship while not acknowledging his own being demonstrated by him focusing on California (and the "60+ head start" they provide).

4/3/2019 12:12:11 PM

synapse
play so hard
57123 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I would have more respect for the arguments if they just said what they really meant: "We think California splitting EC votes would make it more likely that Republicans would get elected." That would be preferable to hiding behind BS arguments like "California Republicans having no representation""

4/3/2019 12:16:43 PM

A Tanzarian
drip drip boom
9533 Posts
user info
edit post

appeal to motive

4/3/2019 12:24:45 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17811 Posts
user info
edit post

Terms that aaronburro does not know the meaning of:

1) Never
2) Direct Democracy
3) Republic

4/3/2019 12:43:26 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
27454 Posts
user info
edit post

His "aberration" post was pretty stupid too, on multiple fronts. It's rare that I feel like an asshole for getting drawn into an argument here, but this counts.

4/3/2019 1:52:00 PM

synapse
play so hard
57123 Posts
user info
edit post

^ you must have missed him saying

Quote :
"the

point

stands"


sooooo......

4/3/2019 3:14:55 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
27454 Posts
user info
edit post

Ah yes guess I didn't consider that the point stands. Ah well, nevertheless....

4/3/2019 7:51:28 PM

synapse
play so hard
57123 Posts
user info
edit post

Some light reading for burro: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/us/usa-democracy.html#click=https://t.co/annKxW4GSL

4/7/2019 1:41:29 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Pros/cons of still having the Electoral College Page 1 [2], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2019 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.