The News Thread

[Baroque]

Why should people who squat on a tiny piece of the entire country dictate policy over tons of mileage they don't even care to see? I'm in favor of this check and balance.

How does acreage owned affect the value of someone's life or opinion? This is idiotic.

 

[rms]

That is true but the map that HamburgerBoy posted makes it clear that the red states aren't really interested in changing the way that it works, unlike many of the major blue states.

change in it what way? Be like Bill Maher? Give California 300 delegates and Wyoming gets -3?

 

[Baroque]

change in it what way? Be like Bill Maher? Give California 300 delegates and Wyoming gets -3?

I said switch to the popular vote.

 

[rms]

you realize the implications of that suggestion?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

You can live in the city and travel to many different places where those policies may have an impact on your life. You can also live in a rural area and never leave your secluded property.

Where you live and how much land you own should have no bearing on the value of your vote for these reasons.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

change in it what way? Be like Bill Maher? Give California 300 delegates and Wyoming gets -3?

Are you always so presumptuous?

 

[Baroque]

you realize the implications of that suggestion?

you realize the implications of the electoral college?

 

[rms]

yes?

but I don't think you understand the electoral college did nothing here. What state had the popular vote winner not receive the delegates?

you think national popular is more important than individual state popular, which I think is a terrible opinion

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

To be frank, it's obvious that people talking about using the popular vote are referring to taking the total number of votes from all states and using them to determine the winner and not something that your reply is relevant to.

 

[Baroque]

yes?

but I don't think you understand the electoral college did nothing here. What state had the popular vote winner not receive the delegates?

you think national popular is more important than individual state popular, which I think is a terrible opinion

Governors are elected by popular vote, as are senators, despite differences in population of counties and cities and farmland within a state. The presidential election has this bizarre system which devalues some votes and overvalues others. It should not be "winner take all" for most states either.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I will be spending the night in with my wife. We're going to make dinner, have some drinks, and watch decidedly apolitical television and/or movies. I'll be dealing with the political ramifications of this for the foreseeable future, in the workplace and in my writing - so I'm taking a night off.

no no I was referring to the legalized marijuana

 

[Baroque]

no no I was referring to the legalized marijuana

Oh yeah that was pretty cool though.

 

[Dak]

How does acreage owned affect the value of someone's life or opinion? This is idiotic.

It isn't about acreage owned. We live in the United States. Why should your vote extend outside your concrete jungle? Much less your arbitrary state boundary. We can play hypotheticals about the stupid nature of national democracy all day.

 

[rms]

It's a national policy for each state to have their own electoral college. States implement that in different ways. If individual states backed out of the electoral college they would simply be giving up voting power to other states. It could however be a policy change at the national level, forcing all states to switch to the popular vote simultaneously.

I don't think it's right to say some votes are valued more, states are, but that's because of the historical nature of that state.

It seems that you are interested in this policy because cities are largely democrat and will largely influence popular vote #'s. Outside of citing a bias to this, what ideological belief do you have that urban areas should have even more pull in this society?

 

[CiG]

Would this argument be so important if Trump lost? Would blue states be willing to change how this all works if their candidate won?

 

[Dak]

Would this argument be so important if Trump lost? Would blue states be willing to change how this all works if their candidate won?

lol fuck no they'd be ecstatic if the opposite result happened. "LOL NO WHINING LAWS THE LAW LOLOLOL DIE BIGOTS - THANK OBAMA FOR THE ELECTORAL POWER TO RULE OUT FLYOVER FUCKERS HATE MOTHERFUCKERS"

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Would this argument be so important if Trump lost? Would blue states be willing to change how this all works if their candidate won?

The blue states have already enacted laws to move forward with this change that were in play before this election. The most recent ones were adopted in 2014. It requires more support nationally in order for it to actually change the electoral map.

lol fuck no they'd be ecstatic if the opposite result happened. "LOL NO WHINING LAWS THE LAW LOLOLOL DIE BIGOTS - THANK OBAMA FOR THE ELECTORAL POWER TO RULE OUT HATE MOTHERFUCKERS"

Not sure how this is true since you can clearly see the map of states that have enacted things to move towards changing the process in an earlier post and the blue states are the ones that are doing it. I get that you hate liberals but this information is easily accessible to you.

 

[EternalMetal]

If Hillary won the complaint wouldnt be about the electoral college, but about how the election was rigged. The mainstream media wouldnt cover it, but people like Alex Jones would have a nervous breakdown trying to demonize the process because he wasnt able to film himself voting and how massive voter fraud was apparently the entire reason why Trump didnt win by a landslide. Anybody else who makes similar videos, reasonable or not, would be deemed crazy (and probably racist) by any liberal and the legitimacy of the vote would otherwise not even be in question.

I know you arent addressing me, but I want to comment:

I don't think it's right to say some votes are valued more, states are, but that's because of the historical nature of that state.

It seems that you are interested in this policy because cities are largely democrat and will largely influence popular vote #'s. Outside of citing a bias to this, what ideological belief do you have that urban areas should have even more pull in this society?

Why should the historical nature of a state automatically allow for its resident's votes to have a higher value? It all comes down to the ratio of a the number of electorates in a state and its overall population. The ratio is not consistent across the board, which therefore makes some individual votes count more than others.

As for your question, it shouldnt be about urban areas having more or less pull. It should be about individual representation. It's unfortunate for rural areas that urban areas have a higher representation of the population, but it is what it is. No vote should count more than any other.

 

[rms]

https://social.newsinc.com/media/js...p=69017&videoId=31614759#.WCLTu7IIGx4.twitter

this is pretty good from Matthews

 

[CiG]

The blue states have already enacted laws to move forward with this change that were in play before this election. The most recent ones were adopted in 2014. It requires more support nationally in order for it to actually change the electoral map.

I didn't know this, where can I find info on it?