Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nevada close to ditching electoral college

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    Actually, we did. That's the point. It's why we don't waste time with "hanging chads" any more.
    Sorry you persist in misunderstanding.
    "Truth is what stands the test of experience."

    ...Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
      It was the will of 30 out of 50 states. That's how one wins the presidential election.

      You don't win by number of hits. You don't win by number of home runs. You don't win by number of errors. You win by how many runners cross the plate. Runners are electoral votes. It is what the founders did to protect us from a world where the presidency is chosen by four states.
      Your misunderstanding of how the electoral college works and why is bordering on frightening.

      Seriously. Before you continue to pontificate on what the founders did and why with such “authority”, you really should study it.

      You’re just embarrassing yourself.
      Last edited by Vito Corleone; 05-24-2019, 08:00 AM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by thankyou View Post

        Sorry you persist in misunderstanding.
        Sorry you persist in projecting.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Prime8 View Post

          Yet in YOUR post #74, you stated that he "was the choice of all 50 states and DC. Overwhelmingly so".
          Yes. 30 of 50 is overwhelmingly so. He won.

          Now, if you are dinging me on imprecise language in a political thread on a musicians site, fine. Let me be more precise: Trump won more states than his opponent, and did so at a 60/40 ratio. In congress that is close to a supermajority. And by overwhelming the number of states that opted for his opponent, he won.

          There is way too much focus on language minutia around here these days. Frankly, I see it as a form of deflection. YMMV.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by guido61 View Post

            Your misunderstanding of how the electoral college works and why is bordering on frightening.
            Please, do elucidate. It appears that I know more about it than you do.

            Edit: And I'm dead serious here.
            Last edited by Easy Listener; 05-24-2019, 08:10 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
              Please, do elucidate. It appears that I know more about it than you do.
              Then why are your posts on the subject filled with inaccuracies?

              Review what I wrote in post #86 and let’s start from there.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                Then why are your posts on the subject filled with inaccuracies?

                Review what I wrote in post #86 and let’s start from there.
                My bad. I did not pay attention to who I was responding to. Never mind.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

                  My bad. I did not pay attention to who I was responding to. Never mind.
                  Yes. The one who dares to challenge you with facts and thoughtful analysis.

                  You’re right. It’s best to ignore so you can get back to repeating your unsupported talking points.
                  Last edited by Vito Corleone; 05-24-2019, 08:28 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
                    Please, do elucidate. It appears that I know more about it than you do.

                    Edit: And I'm dead serious here.


                    Apparently you're NOT serious, are you? Because you run away anytime someone challenges you to serious debate and discussion on the topic.

                    It seems to me you wish this forum to be something like an episode of Tucker Carlson: where the only liberals you 'debate' are those you handpick to have less knowledge than you on a topic so you can appear to be more smart and more 'correct'.

                    But sadly, the real world doesn't work that way. But if you wish to continue to play AOC to my Candace Owens and keep dodging debate challenges, that's fine by me.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

                      My bad. I did not pay attention to who I was responding to. Never mind.
                      It's apparent much has not been paid attention to.
                      tRump is NO star player. The ball simply bounced in his direction.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
                        It was the will of 30 out of 50 states. That's how one wins the presidential election.

                        You don't win by number of hits. You don't win by number of home runs. You don't win by number of errors. You win by how many runners cross the plate. Runners are electoral votes. It is what the founders did to protect us from a world where the presidency is chosen by four states.
                        Horrible analogy that makes no sense.

                        If you wanted to come up with a sports analogy this one is probably closer: The current system is a like a nine-inning baseball game, but where the runs scored in innings 2, 4, and 7 are worth more than the others. And only the runs of which inning the team 'wins' are counted.

                        But even that doesn't totally get at it because the EC, as currently implemented, is nonsensical. I don't think anyone could come up with a true analogy.

                        But let me explain how easily your "will of the states" nonsense is shown to be such:

                        Let's go back to 2000. Gore lost the electoral college by a few hundred votes in Florida but won the popular vote by some 500,000 votes. To reverse this outcome would have taken very little: Gore getting a few hundred more votes in Florida and Bush running up his votes in say, California and Texas (but not by enough to actually win California).

                        Completely opposite final result but with every state's 'will' being the same sans one really big state: Florida.

                        If the EC is really about reflecting the "will of the states" and "protecting the interests of small states and rural voter interests", then it should really be possible for the system to so easily have two completely different final outcomes. It makes no sense.

                        No. As I've pointed out repeatedly (and which you and others defenders of the EC have repeatedly ignored) it doesn't reflect the "will of the states". Nor does it encourage the candidates to address the interests of small states and rural voters. Instead, it focuses all the attention on a few "battleground" states. Only the states where the polls show a potentially close election get paid attention to. The voters and the interests in the vast majority of the rest of the country--be they heavy population states or vast size states with low population centers--get completely ignored.
                        Last edited by Vito Corleone; 05-24-2019, 09:30 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post



                          The elimination of the electoral college would mean that cities would matter, while rural areas would be largely left out.
                          I am going to disagree and argue that, in fact, the exact opposite is true. Hear me out:

                          1) Rural areas are largely left out NOW. Which candidates campaign in rural areas? How many rural areas did Trump visit during the general election? Clinton? Romney? Obama? Which interests of the rural areas and small states are being addressed now that you fear would be ignored if we went to a popular vote?

                          2) Instead, they just focus on the 'battleground' states. Do you know who is going to get all the attention in 2020? Those few voters determined to be 'swing' voters in PA, MI, WI and FL. That's great if you are one of them---maybe your concerns will be addressed. But is that really the same concerns of those in rural areas of California, Texas, Idaho, Vermont? Maybe, maybe not. We won't know because nobody is ever going to go THOSE rural areas to find out.

                          3) What the EC has created is a greater divide and greater disenfranchisement of voters of both parties and all regions. Take California for example: The presidential election hasn't really been competitive there for 25 years. So the Democrats take California for granted and the Republicans have written it off. And what has been the result of that? A continued decline of the GOP in the state. Because when there is no interest in the presidential election the parties don't bother to spend as much down ballot. And this same thing can be said of Democrats in the southern states.

                          4) What going to a popular vote count would do is make the voters in these non-competitive states important again. Right now it doesn't matter if the Republican in California gets one vote or 5 million because the Dem is still going to get 8 million and win the election. Go to a popular vote and now the Republican will have a reason to try and get more votes in and around Fresno and San Diego and Orange County. They will actually have to address those issues. And the Dem will actually have to pay attention to San Jose and LA for reasons other than campaign contributions from deep-pocketed donors. The Dem might actually find it in their interest to go to San Antonio or Jackson, MI. The Republican might do more than pay lip service to the rural voters in Oregon and Washington.

                          As it is now? They are both going to spend most of their time and billions of dollars in Florida. And most in the big cities there. So I think that you really need to rethink this "small states and rural voters" argument for the EC.



                          Comment


                          • Nevada Governor vetoed the bill today.



                            https://www.ktvn.com/story/40326559/...lar-vote-bill1

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by erok123 View Post
                              Wow, 15 states already? Personally, I'm not sure it's the best way to escape the current tyranny by the minority. I agree something needs to be done, however.

                              https://www.npr.org/2019/05/22/72561...ctoral-college
                              *One more reason why all the griping about the electoral college is much ado about nothing, every state has the right to move toward proportional representation. Apparently many states have done so already.

                              The constitution allows for it. So what’s the problem?

                              As for me, if presidential elections were decided by purely popular vote, many mayors of Chicago, L.A., New York would be elected President. Those mayoral jobs would become natural stepping stones into the White House.

                              Draw your own conclusions whether that would be good or bad.
                              ——
                              *It’s really odd that Democrats, who have a built-in advantage in the
                              electoral college are the ones shouting loudest for it to be abolished.
                              Last edited by Etienne Rambert; 05-31-2019, 10:04 PM.
                              He has escaped! Youtube , ​Murika , France

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Etienne Rambert View Post

                                One more reason why all the griping about the electoral college is much ado about nothing, every state has the right to move toward proportional representation. Apparently many states have done so already.

                                The constitution allows for it. So what’s the problem?

                                As for me, if presidential elections were decided by purely popular vote, many mayors of Chicago, Los Angeles would be elected President. Those mayoral jobs would become natural stepping stones into the White House.

                                Draw your own conclusions whether that would be good or bad.
                                Why do you think those mayors would have any bigger advantage under a popular vote system than they do now?

                                BTW, not sure what you mean by “proportional representation”, but all except two states have “winner takes all” systems. The other two, Nebraska and Maine, let each congressional district select their own elector with their two “at large” electors voting in line the total state result.

                                but yes, the Constitution allows the states to choose their electors by any manner they decide.
                                Last edited by Vito Corleone; 05-31-2019, 10:07 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X