More leftist lunacy

#51
#51
Septic said:
All states.
Click to expand...
So it’s a very real possibility I haven’t followed you correctly.

Are you also advocating a system where the States electoral votes could be split? I think you might have thrown me when you spoke of proportionality.
 
#52
#52
hog88 said:
Yes. I think that system would force the candidates to moderate and run their campaigns to appeal to a wider audience. No more completley ignoring state X because it's always gone Y.
Click to expand...
I like it.
 
#53
#53
85SugarVol said:
So that proposal would shift increased weight to population centers?
Click to expand...

NY is a blue state with a big count in the EC. If you look at NY by county in an election map, it looks like the state is far more red than blue; so you'd think it comes down to how the districts are drawn. Hog's idea would seem better than NYC speaking for the whole state; Atlanta turned GA blue. There has to be a way to fairly represent the vast majority of the country without undue influence by a few huge metropolitan centers with narrow political interests. Before I'd go with hog's idea, I'd have to see what it does to other states - does gaining in some places and losing in others actually wind up making a difference - would the struggle to change be worth the effort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and InVOLuntary
#54
#54
AM64 said:
NY is a blue state with a big count in the EC. If you look at NY by county in an election map, it looks like the state is far more red than blue; so you'd think it comes down to how the districts are drawn. Hog's idea would seem better than NYC speaking for the whole state; Atlanta turned GA blue. There has to be a way to fairly represent the vast majority of the country without undue influence by a few huge metropolitan centers with narrow political interests. Before I'd go with hog's idea, I'd have to see what it does to other states - does gaining in some places and losing in others actually wind up making a difference - would the struggle to change be worth the effort.
Click to expand...
All of the States would be up for grabs.

The Democrats would give up votes in CA & NY, but gain votes in TX & FL.
The Republicans would likely see the inverse, losing red votes but gaining blue votes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and AM64
#55
#55
VolStrom said:
The system we have has worked well for nearly 250 years. We don't need to re-invent the wheel because our population has become feeble and weak and unable to admit defeat when we don't get our way.
Click to expand...

We weren't always as clustered in a few places as today. Now the huge metropolitan areas can dominate entire states and deprive the rest of the state a voice. There doesn't seem to be any major metropolitan area that isn't either hard left or even in the most red state doesn't lean left. You have to ask if that disproportionate demographic is what's killing rural areas that we need for agriculture and so on. Cities need the rural areas a lot more than the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#56
#56
85SugarVol said:
All of the States would be up for grabs.

The Democrats would give up votes in CA & NY, but gain votes in TX & FL.
The Republicans would likely see the inverse, losing red votes but gaining blue votes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the disturbing part. It doesn't seem to be a clear win/win kind of thing that dilutes narrow interests in large population centers.
 
#57
#57
Forget changing voting and districting..just further subdivisions. The fight is still there.
I think the best thing to do is have the Feds follow the USC..and things would settle nicely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#58
#58
lawgator1 said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there may be a bit more to this than you are telling us.
Click to expand...

As a lawyer, even you know the ACLU takes things way too far sometimes.

And I do have an issue with an organization that picks and chooses which civil liberties they want to protect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, InVOLuntary, NorthDallas40 and 2 others
#59
#59
KB5252 said:
I don't either...... But I do have a problem with a school board selectively allowing or denying a students right to express themselves at school functions. It's like allowing the boy scouts to fund raise on public property but not allowing the girl scouts.
Click to expand...


Me, too. I agree. And especially this. I think its fine for them to express their gratitude to law enforcement in this manner.

Occurs to me that the objection may be that the blue line is embedded in the flag. I wonder if everyone would be happier if they carried two flags, the first being the American flag and the second being a solid blue one.

Everybody wins.
 
#61
#61
Septic said:
I'd propose keeping the EC (based on population) but having the votes proportional to the votes cast for each party.

Everyone's vote would have meaning and carry weight, with the exception of the two states(?) that do this now if your party loses the states popular vote by one ballot - your vote is worthless. I don't understand how anyone would think that a winner take all system would be remotely indicative of the will or wants of the constituency.
Click to expand...
Nothing is actually preventing that now except state legislatures just changing their EC delegate assignment laws. The Feds do not define how delegates are assigned by the states rather only the total delegates per state are defined. I believe two states have proportional delegates now? (Yeah I see you referenced that also)
 
#62
#62
AM64 said:
NY is a blue state with a big count in the EC. If you look at NY by county in an election map, it looks like the state is far more red than blue; so you'd think it comes down to how the districts are drawn. Hog's idea would seem better than NYC speaking for the whole state; Atlanta turned GA blue. There has to be a way to fairly represent the vast majority of the country without undue influence by a few huge metropolitan centers with narrow political interests. Before I'd go with hog's idea, I'd have to see what it does to other states - does gaining in some places and losing in others actually wind up making a difference - would the struggle to change be worth the effort.
Click to expand...

Isn't each congressional district supposed to have approximately the same amount of people in them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#64
#64
AM64 said:
We weren't always as clustered in a few places as today. Now the huge metropolitan areas can dominate entire states and deprive the rest of the state a voice. There doesn't seem to be any major metropolitan area that isn't either hard left or even in the most red state doesn't lean left. You have to ask if that disproportionate demographic is what's killing rural areas that we need for agriculture and so on. Cities need the rural areas a lot more than the other way around.
Click to expand...

Think about it, as it is now presidential candidates don't even have to campaign in some states. And in some states they only have to concentrate on 1 or 2 city metro areas to win the entire EC count for that state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and AM64
#66
#66
hog88 said:
Isn't each congressional district supposed to have approximately the same amount of people in them?
Click to expand...

Basically, but there's still the devil in the details - who draws the lines, why, and how they justify it.
 
#67
#67
AM64 said:
Basically, but there's still the devil in the details - who draws the lines, why, and how they justify it.
Click to expand...

Each state draws their own lines just like they always have.

Something else that needs to change is to add the question about citizenship on the census and states are only apportioned by the amount of citizens and not total population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, InVOLuntary, AM64 and 1 other person
#68
#68
hog88 said:
It actually does dilute the fact that all a candidate has to do is win the Chicago metro area to win ALL of IL.
Click to expand...

Look at the biden campaign; he basically didn't show up and still won. It's like the brand is set and the candidate doesn't matter much. I'm not sure how broader campaigning by a candidate fixes that. One interesting tidbit, though, is that when you do use streaming for TV all the political ads go away - not sure if that makes the polarization thing better, worse, or just leaves people happier.
 
#69
#69
hog88 said:
Each state draws their own lines just like they always have.

Something else that needs to change is to add the question about citizenship on the census and states are only apportioned by the amount of citizens and not total population.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with the citizenship and apportioning. Of course, we all know your thing about Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#70
#70
AM64 said:
Look at the biden campaign; he basically didn't show up and still won. It's like the brand is set and the candidate doesn't matter much. I'm not sure how broader campaigning by a candidate fixes that. One interesting tidbit, though, is that when you do use streaming for TV all the political ads go away - not sure if that makes the polarization thing better, worse, or just leaves people happier.
Click to expand...

They can't rig the count in every congressional district so a candidate wouldn't win ALL of a states EC votes simply by "winning" the largest metro area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#71
#71
hog88 said:
They can't rig the count in every congressional district so a candidate wouldn't win ALL of a states EC votes simply by "winning" the largest metro area.
Click to expand...

I know. My point really is that while a few blue states like CA and NY would be diluted, a larger number of red states would also be diluted. For example, TN would give up red EC votes to Shelby, Knox, Hamilton, Davidson Co ... and maybe more. In the end would a little more red in CA, NY, and IL make up for the red lost in a broader number of states? I still like your idea, and I've had similar thoughts ... I just don't know how it would change things - and I'm way too lazy to do the homework using the last election results.
 
#73
#73
AM64 said:
NY is a blue state with a big count in the EC. If you look at NY by county in an election map, it looks like the state is far more red than blue; so you'd think it comes down to how the districts are drawn. Hog's idea would seem better than NYC speaking for the whole state; Atlanta turned GA blue. There has to be a way to fairly represent the vast majority of the country without undue influence by a few huge metropolitan centers with narrow political interests. Before I'd go with hog's idea, I'd have to see what it does to other states - does gaining in some places and losing in others actually wind up making a difference - would the struggle to change be worth the effort.
Click to expand...

We need to curb the disproportionate power afforded to large swaths of land but with sparse populations. In the Presidential election, the value of a voter in Montana is many times the weight of a voter in, say, North Carolina. Or New York.

The two votes per state, regardless of the disparity in population, unconstitutionally overweights the votes of rural small states and penalizes states with large urban population centers.

Every American's vote for POTUS should count EXACTLY the same.
 
#74
#74
lawgator1 said:
We need to curb the disproportionate power afforded to large swaths of land but with sparse populations. In the Presidential election, the value of a voter in Montana is many times the weight of a voter in, say, North Carolina. Or New York.

The two votes per state, regardless of the disparity in population, unconstitutionally overweights the votes of rural small states and penalizes states with large urban population centers.

Every American's vote for POTUS should count EXACTLY the same.
Click to expand...

It works the way it was intended. We wouldn’t have lasted this long with a popular vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and AM64
#75
#75
lawgator1 said:
We need to curb the disproportionate power afforded to large swaths of land but with sparse populations. In the Presidential election, the value of a voter in Montana is many times the weight of a voter in, say, North Carolina. Or New York.

The two votes per state, regardless of the disparity in population, unconstitutionally overweights the votes of rural small states and penalizes states with large urban population centers.

Every American's vote for POTUS should count EXACTLY the same.
Click to expand...
I think we need to curb the disproportionate power of a person renting a 600sq ft apartment in nyc over a 2000 acre land owner in Montana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, volinbham and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top