Discussion in The No Count Section started by atxdragon, Nov 8, 2016
No worries, real life is more important.
Theres a video explaining we are more of a republic than a democracy cause otherwise popular vote would win.
You can't just focus on the states with all the population or just a region say the south or northeast or west coast.
It has checks and balances built in with it. 2 senators from each state but House of Reps is based off population of your state.
If there weren't any all or nothing States this election results #mce_temp_url#
So pretty much the way the EC works is each state gets a say in who gets voted into the office of the President. So each state is given a set number of EC points, lets take California for example. California has 55 EC points at stake, the way it came to have that many is from the population of the state. Now how this happens is by the amount of Representatives they have voted into Congress along with the number of Senators they have. So California has 53 members in the house of congress and 2 Senators. This is then done for every single state.
Now this system allows so you can have people from all over the country have a true say in the vote. The other system that now some people from the Left(calling it as I say because it's true) want to do away with the EC and move to a Popular vote system. A Popular vote system would pull us into Mob rule where the Large cities of our country will have all the say and the people living out in Rural America won't have any real say in the voting.
With a simple popular vote to pick the President then we would run into a host of different issues. Candidates would simply go to areas where there are large chunks of people and campaign there, while ignoring the people that live out in rural areas. This can lead to issues where you have people in power that don't care about the things that affect someone say living in Idaho but will care only about the things that people in big cities live in. This would lead to a case where people will be going unheard and ignored since it would be seen as a waste of time to go to those areas.
The EC system is a MUCH better system then a simple popular vote which is simply Mob rule. My only problem with the EC currently is having all or nothing states. This leads to some people not voting since say if you wanted to vote for Trump in California odds are you stayed home and didn't vote since there are many more people that are Pro-Hilary here. With California being an all or nothing state you then would IGNORE the voices of the other voters that didn't vote for her.
Would be more interesting to see the voter turn out if there weren't any all or nothing states as well from looking at that spreadsheet. Since all or nothing states tend to have a large voting block stay home and not vote.
did you see the bill that was brought up to eliminate the EC? gonna be another failed attempt but still funny to see angry libatrds.
It won't pass. Since the EC is a constitutional amendment. You need 2/3 of the House and Senate to pass it and then you need 2/3 of the STATES to also pass it. It won't happen. But it goes to my point that people want our country to turn into a full on Democracy which is simply mob rule. We have the best form of government you can have a Representative Republic.
This is my entire issue with the EC currently. It makes a large percentage of the votes just now count and I think that in itself is why people are mad. Sure we could argue narrow minded that it is only Hillary supporters that are mad, but I would be willing to be this isn't the first time in history that the EC has been called into question as a questionable system. I understood all of that already, more so I was looking to see of my opinion of popular vote vs editing/removing the EC.
Couldn't you argue that candidates already do that though? (I have no proof of this other than what I know from campaign stops and that they're all big cities, or at least the more popular cities. You didn't see Trump or Hillary (to the best of my knowledge) going to Joeshmoeville oklahoma, or Jillwhatshernametown Montana to campaign. They already stop and focus on big cities anyway, and if you have no way of getting there then you are SOL. You as a voter would then be responsible for going out and looking for information to see how you align with the different candidates, and would need to be able to tell what is fact and fiction with news media, which is a whole other story. How would that be any different?
I understand, in theory, why a popular vote would be bad, but I wold also argue a point you have brought up already that some percentage of people don't even go out and vote because of all or nothing states. I believe WI (where I am) voted Trump. So even if I had voted Hillary, it wouldn't have mattered and now a large percentage of peoples votes get canceled out. I don't see how that's a good system at all.
Well that is in part why Hilary lost your state of WI she only went to the major cities where there were strong blue voters. Trump went out to the Rural areas of WI as well not just the big cities. You had one Candidate making stops at major cities and once in a while a town. But the other Candidate went beyond that and went to mainly Rural America, yes he went to cities as well but he didn't bother going to certain states to campaign like CA and NY to name a few which he knew was a waste of time since it was an all or nothing state and the blue vote heavily out numbered the red vote due to the fact it was an all or nothing state.
If you get rid of all or nothing states and just give out the EC points based on the % of the vote they got in each state you'd see two things. Candidates would be forced to campaign in every state, and also you'd have more people voting. Since now every vote would truly count in the election process of the President.
But as how the Senator from CA brought up a bill to remove the EC and switch to a popular vote THAT is a major issue. You never want something based on mob rule that can affect the entire country as a whole. Do you wonder why the Congress shifted this time to full GOP control? More people voted for the House and Senate races then they did for the Presidential elections. Because the House and Senate races every vote counts on those.
Most of the people that are mad at the EC currently because of this election are mainly in Blue States. Look at the protests where they are mainly happening. Out in the three West Coast states all deeply blue, you have protests in New York deeply blue state, and then you have pockets of protests from blue voters in red states as well.
That state is a good example of why Trump won the election. Hilary stayed in the cities of PA where it was heavy blue voters, Trump on the other hand went out to rural PA and was able to get them to come out and vote. By doing that it gave him a narrow victory in PA.
Of again for some time got to see a surgeon if you want to go more in depth about the EC later on and why its needed.
It was more than just where each candidate went. Hillary was advocating globalism and Trump was talking about bringing jobs back to America. That's how Trump got the working class to vote for him.
Also if badgirls suggestion of removing all or nothing States were applied to the percentages of this election. Hillary would have won.
This is why people are mad. The overall popular vote (with or without the EC) vote was for Hillary. However because of the way the delegates work it was swung in Trumps favor.
I'll have to check on this. I guess it might boil down to the fact that you and I classify rural differently. I live in a town of 10k people. So to me, my town is rural, and Wisconsin really has four cities that I can think of that are fairly major: Madison, La Crosse, Green Bay, and Milwaukee. I would have to see where exactly Trump stopped, but I don't think I'd classify him as going to rural America. But then again, I have seen the exact places he stopped so that very well could be my own bias.
Obviously I don't like him, but regardless of my personal bias I think it should be whoever gets the majority of the vote. I guess I'm still confused how that changes anything from EC to non EC. Either way the majority of the people are voting. I understand in theory why it makes a difference, but in real practice I'm still a bit confused. Either way the majority of people's voices will be heard. Votes 1:1 would be counted towards whatever delegate they voted for. How is that different than having no EC at all?
That is definitely your bias talking. He absolutely campaigned it rural towns. I was watching a lot of them that were in Wisconsin! He held some in Eau Claire, WI; Green Bay Wi, Waukesha WI, West bend WI... Of the 4 'fairly major' cities you listed, he was at 3 rural cities to the 1 being Green Bay. I only listed 4 stops and I think he went there half a dozen times, but 4 cities I can say for certain.
As far as your bit about popular vote vs ec.. I don't particularly have a strong argument except that if that were the case... and the presidency depended upon popular vote instead of ec, the campaign trail and campaign itself would have been entirely different. Where he held his rallies to main topics/discussions of audience. Perhaps if he went to California and actually campaigned or spent any time there, he wouldn't have lost the popular vote by AS MUCH; and basically things would still be different, so you can't just say oh let's flip the script and make things popular vote now!
I think you glossed over my point about him not going to certain Blue states because he knew those would be won by Hilary no matter what. CA and NY are both examples of this. Lets say he did go to both states and told people to vote for him there and went around some cities but mainly the Rural areas. You'd see the difference in votes in CA and NY much closer then they were in this election cycle. He even said it himself if this was simply popular vote then he would have gone to CA and NY to campaign as well.
People are made because they feel that the MOB should have a final say in it. That is how you lead to tyranny, we have a Republic form of government that uses the EC to allow us to pick our leader. It's not because how the delegates work, it's because Trump went out to RURAL areas and talked to the people out there and got people that normally stay home to come out and vote. Hilary on the other side didn't she stuck to the main bastions of solid Blue voting areas and ignored RURAL America.
Here is the breakdown of your state county wise https://elections16.usatoday.com/results/wisconsin/president
With current amount of votes cast yes. But if you had no all or nothing states you would see a MUCH higher voter turn out in solid blue and solid red states from both sides of the aisle. The election could have been a lot closer then it really was.
The reason why you need EC is because a prime example of this is my state of CA. You have the power in three major cities San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento. Those three cities have lots of districts that put people into our State legislature. The rural parts of CA don't have as many districts so they get less reps in the State legislature. Now with this happening you have the cities dictating to the people in rural areas laws that are passed without taking into account how those laws would hamper and hurt people in rural areas.
A prime example is the no burn law/rules put into place here. On certain days the state will say you can't burn wood or else you face a fine and the fine increases with each time you do it. There is a problem since most people in Rural areas the only real way to have heat during the cold weather months or other times is by using wood burning fireplaces. Out in rural areas you don't have natural gas pipelines running to homes. This is an example of why mob rule is bad. People in the city have different things to worry about then what people in Rural areas have to worry about.
Tump supporters in a nutshell.
Anti-Trump supporters in a nutshell.
Moral of the story you have radicals on both sides. And the more you try to lump things that can could be done by a small fringe of his supporters and say it's ALL of them just leads us to more division. The same shit is happening with leftest supporters but you seem to turn a blind eye to it and think it's fine to be violent simply for voting for someone else. You have people that will turn to violence or do stupid things on both sides. But to LUMP it with ALL people that support one or the other candidate is stupid. But I can play that game with you if you want and trust me I will win this game.
Also don't you think they'd be able to draw the Nazi symbol correctly if they were really White nationalist? LOL
Exactly. These are the IRL trolls just trying to offend people who are easy to offend.
also i thought this was great.
I'm not following this much at all but damn...She was mad.
That's the giggle i'm looking for m8.
#Miloforwhitehousepresssecretary I'd love to watch those press conferences.
Separate names with a comma.