2020 Presidential Race

#876
#876
tvolsfan said:
There isn’t any one specific reason for the creation of the electoral college, but to put it bluntly, there was skepticism that the people could be entrusted with the decision. It is completely obsolete in an era where people directly cast their vote for president.
Click to expand...

Apparently the founding fathers skepticism wasn't misplaced. I can't see how this decision improves anything except that butt hurt feeling. If you want to talk about irrelevancy, then this nonsense really checks that box; why would anyone go to CO to campaign when the decision is made elsewhere and CO just throws in their two cents worth and says "Me, too". We've had this discussion before on VN ... slightly different, but essentially the same. If you go to just a straight popular vote, there's no real need for candidates to even step foot in many states.

If I were running things, I'd go the opposite direction and do almost what the EC does at the state level. Atlanta almost outweighs the rest of GA. Large metropolitan areas like NYC, Chicago, etc overwhelm the rest of the state. So would you prefer that the US government be dominated by urban decree ... everything run to the "needs" of urban blight? How much of the essentials (food, water, fuel, cars, ...) do cities produce? Sorry but cities are overhead and rural areas are the producers, and popular or not, our electoral process needs to account for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, tbwhhs and VolStrom
#877
#877
tvolsfan said:
It only comes into force when enough states sign up to decide the election. So that effectively would make the presidential election determined by popular vote.

That doesn’t change the imbalance per state.
Click to expand...
its done to keep the peace. Most of the country doesn't want to be ruled by California, New York, and like four other states. removing the electoral college removes the value of any minority vote.

we aren't a true democracy. we were never supposed to be, and there is no good reason for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, C-south, tbwhhs and 1 other person
#878
#878
AM64 said:
Apparently the founding fathers skepticism wasn't misplaced. I can't see how this decision improves anything except that butt hurt feeling. If you want to talk about irrelevancy, then this nonsense really checks that box; why would anyone go to CO to campaign when the decision is made elsewhere and CO just throws in their two cents worth and says "Me, too". We've had this discussion before on VN ... slightly different, but essentially the same. If you go to just a straight popular vote, there's no real need for candidates to even step foot in many states.

If I were running things, I'd go the opposite direction and do almost what the EC does at the state level. Atlanta almost outweighs the rest of GA. Large metropolitan areas like NYC, Chicago, etc overwhelm the rest of the state. So would you prefer that the US government be dominated by urban decree ... everything run to the "needs" of urban blight? How much of the essentials (food, water, fuel, cars, ...) do cities produce? Sorry but cities are overhead and rural areas are the producers, and popular or not, our electoral process needs to account for that.
Click to expand...
Uh, their votes still count towards to the popular vote.
 
#879
#879
AM64 said:
Apparently the founding fathers skepticism wasn't misplaced. I can't see how this decision improves anything except that butt hurt feeling. If you want to talk about irrelevancy, then this nonsense really checks that box; why would anyone go to CO to campaign when the decision is made elsewhere and CO just throws in their two cents worth and says "Me, too". We've had this discussion before on VN ... slightly different, but essentially the same. If you go to just a straight popular vote, there's no real need for candidates to even step foot in many states.

If I were running things, I'd go the opposite direction and do almost what the EC does at the state level. Atlanta almost outweighs the rest of GA. Large metropolitan areas like NYC, Chicago, etc overwhelm the rest of the state. So would you prefer that the US government be dominated by urban decree ... everything run to the "needs" of urban blight? How much of the essentials (food, water, fuel, cars, ...) do cities produce? Sorry but cities are overhead and rural areas are the producers, and popular or not, our electoral process needs to account for that.
Click to expand...
Everyone gets one vote with equal weight. That’s the entire point.
 
#880
#880
tvolsfan said:
Go on, elaborate.
Click to expand...
On the one hand stating that the new law passed in Colorado enables the governor to award their electoral votes as he sees fit. And perhaps it does - I've been too busy running catalyst tests this morning to even read the article. Then on the other hand stating it would only come into play if enough other states follow suit.
 
#881
#881
tvolsfan said:
Let’s try this again. For now, they will award electoral votes the same way. This only takes effect when enough states sign on, at which point all American votes for president will have equal weight, which is how it should be.
Click to expand...

That is not the way it should be and thankfully our FFs knew that 2 centuries ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Obsessed, tbwhhs and 1 other person
#882
#882
RavinDave said:
On the one hand stating that the new law passed in Colorado enables the governor to award their electoral votes as he sees fit. And perhaps it does - I've been too busy running catalyst tests this morning to even read the article. Then on the other hand stating it would only come into play if enough other states follow suit.
Click to expand...
I have not said that and this law in no way allows for that. I believe I have said the exact opposite multiple times.

The last sentence is true. It does not go into effect unless there are enough states to hit the 270 mark to determine the election.
 
#883
#883
hog88 said:
That is not the way it should be and thankfully our FFs knew that 2 centuries ago.
Click to expand...
A lot of our founding fathers didn’t want the average citizen voting for president at all.

But it’s good you finally admitted you don’t want all votes to have equal weight.
 
#884
#884
tvolsfan said:
Everyone gets one vote with equal weight. That’s the entire point.
Click to expand...

Face it. If the GOP had lost an election while winning the popular vote, you'd be on the other side of the issue extolling the virtues of the EC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#885
#885
AM64 said:
Face it. If the GOP had lost an election while winning the popular vote, you'd be on the other side of the issue extolling the virtues of the EC.
Click to expand...
Not true. If it makes you feel less ridiculous, you can feel free to believe it, though.
 
#886
#886
LouderVol said:
its done to keep the peace. Most of the country doesn't want to be ruled by California, New York, and like four other states. removing the electoral college removes the value of any minority vote.

we aren't a true democracy. we were never supposed to be, and there is no good reason for it.
Click to expand...

It's not even being ruled by 4 states, it would be our entire country ruled by 7-10 cities. Think about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed, AM64 and tbwhhs
#888
#888
tvolsfan said:
A lot of our founding fathers didn’t want the average citizen voting for president at all.

But it’s good you finally admitted you don’t want all votes to have equal weight.
Click to expand...

I think I admitted that years ago. Not only do I oppose doing away with the EC I want the 17th amendment repealed. (look it up)
 
#892
#892
hog88 said:
Don't you mean voters?

Without the EC a presidential candidate would only have to campaign in New York (city), Los Angeles area, San Fransisco area, Chicago, Houston, Miami, Philadelphia, and northern VA to be elected president.
Click to expand...
Fantasy, but I guess that explains your thought process.
 
#899
#899
tvolsfan said:
A lot of our founding fathers didn’t want the average citizen voting for president at all.
Click to expand...

Very true, but, the answer isn't what the left would like to hear. If we accept this, then, we must institute a civics test to be able to have the right to vote. I'm good with that because of the "reason" for such thought from the founding fathers.

In addition, the "politician" of that day was actually a public servant who held high regard in the position, and conversely, these servants were held to a higher regard. Not only were they there because they had more inclination in being able to help with the "new law", they were true to their constituency and that was the standard by which they served.

Also, add in

ID and thumb print for personal verification needed to vote

a completely true and independent local and state regulatory board of elections, where no registered D or R can be present, with multiple levels of checks on top of that

only write in votes are from military

Add in plethora of other items.

Then, we can have the one man one vote discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#900
#900
tvolsfan said:
I don’t understand. It’s a weird take.
Click to expand...

The direct election of senators is arguably the worst amendment to the constitution ever. It super-concentrated all of the power of the senate into urban areas. In VA when I lived there senatorial candidates didn't waste their time or effort west of Roanoke. Of course they didn't do a damn thing for that part of teh state either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top