|
The Difficult Topics
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:11
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mresuperstar wrote:
Yes, reread what I said.
"I have to agree with the majority of America, wait I mean the electoral college"
I have to agree with the popular vote and electoral college. I was just trying to point out the electoral college is flawed system as well. So is the popular vote. In general politics is a load of corrupt systems and yet we still all manage to get along.
Some how... 
You said you had to go along with the majority of Americans (i.e. popular vote), but then implied that this wasn't the case because the electoral college system was used instead.
You've now also said you have to go along with the popular vote (completely untrue: Bush won in 2000 despite losing the popular vote)
Anyway, what's your alternative then?
Edited by Crommy on 07-11-2012 21:12
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Another result, one which has gone a bit under the radar, is that Puerto Rico voted for statehood. It has to be approved by Congress first though.
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:21
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Levi4life wrote:
Another result, one which has gone a bit under the radar, is that Puerto Rico voted for statehood. It has to be approved by Congress first though.
Chances of that happening?
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 05:24
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Mresuperstar |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:23
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8058
Joined: 22-06-2009
PCM$: 650.00
|
Split the points up given in electoral college. If a state gives out 16 points and the popular vote in the state goes 51% to 49%. How is it fair the candidate gets all 16 points. My suggest is that it is split. One candidate gets a little over 8 points for the 51% and the other would get a tad under. With the numbers being proportionate.
This all or nothing system technically made my vote useless since Michigan gave 16 points to Obama.
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:27
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'd say pretty good. Both parties have voiced support for statehood in their 2012 platforms, and now Puerto Ricans have voted for it. Politics might get in the way though.
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:30
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mresuperstar wrote:
Split the points up given in electoral college. If a state gives out 16 points and the popular vote in the state goes 51% to 49%. How is it fair the candidate gets all 16 points. My suggest is that it is split. One candidate gets a little over 8 points for the 51% and the other would get a tad under. With the numbers being proportionate.
This all or nothing system technically made my vote useless since Michigan gave 16 points to Obama.
I completely agree with this. But you disagreed with the popular vote too. Why not just a full on popular vote instead?
|
| |
|
|
| Mresuperstar |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:36
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8058
Joined: 22-06-2009
PCM$: 650.00
|
Because then people that live in the big cities hold all the power as they are the majority. Making citizens that live in suburbs useless because they are out numbered. Thus swinging politics in favor of big cities.
Again making my vote useless...
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:41
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mresuperstar wrote:
Because then people that live in the big cities hold all the power as they are the majority. Making citizens that live in suburbs useless because they are out numbered. Thus swinging politics in favor of big cities.
Again making my vote useless...
But every vote is equal. Look at it from the alternative - why should your vote carry more weight just because you don't live in a city?
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:42
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
The points allocated to each state by the Electoral college are determined by population. If you start dividing up points based on population then you might as well do away with the system all together, and just do a popular vote.
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:49
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Let me rephrase that. The Electoral College is 535 strong, 1 for each senator, 1 for each representative (determined by population).
As it is, rural districts are overly represented, just by how the senate is. Shit states like Idaho get the same number of senators as California does. Ergo, a vote for a senator in Idaho, or Michigan, is more valuable than my vote for a California senator.
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:52
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I thought the electoral college had grown up to 538 now, since 270 would give anyone the win, and 269 would have made the candidates even ? |
| |
|
|
| Mresuperstar |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:52
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8058
Joined: 22-06-2009
PCM$: 650.00
|
@Crommy: Using that logic our votes aren't equal anymore. More people live in cities and therefore would favor politics that benefit people living in cities. However considering I live in a small town community, as does most of Michigan, how can we stand up for what we believe in as the majority of the land area of Michigan if Detroit puts through policy that benefits them and not Michigan as a whole? Sounds rather unfair to me. And not equal.
@Levi: This allows people like me that live in a state that is dominate by people in a large city (Detroit) to have our vote heard. This current system just made my vote vanish. If I wanted my vote to count all of west Michigan should have just moved to Ohio or Florida to make a difference.
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 07-11-2012 21:58
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
But are policies really decided in terms of cities / country-land ?
I can see what the point of that was 150 years ago, but nowadays, that makes much less sense. |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 07-11-2012 22:01
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mresuperstar wrote:
@Crommy: Using that logic our votes aren't equal anymore. More people live in cities and therefore would favor politics that benefit people living in cities. However considering I live in a small town community, as does most of Michigan, how can we stand up for what we believe in as the majority of the land area of Michigan if Detroit puts through policy that benefits them and not Michigan as a whole? Sounds rather unfair to me. And not equal.
Using that logic our votes aren't equal anymore. More people are called James and therefore would favor politics that benefit people called James. However considering I am not called James, as is most of Michigan, how can we stand up for what we believe in as the majority of the people of Michigan if James' puts through policy that benefits them and not Michigan as a whole? Sounds rather unfair to me. And not equal.
You can't just arbitrarily divide up the populace and lend more weight to them when you elect someone who represents the whole of the population of the country.
It's why you have Senators and Representatives.
Edited by Crommy on 07-11-2012 22:02
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 07-11-2012 22:06
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
As Aquarius said, if Detroit is the deciding factor in the election, then that means that the Detroit voting block was larger than the West Michigan Voting block. That is democracy. There are more of them than there are of you. If land mass was the deciding factor in an election, then California would be a red state. Most of California's square footage is red, but those are sparsely populated areas. Most people live in the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, LA, San Diego and Sacramento.
And Michigan wasn't even close. Romney lost by 10 percentage points...
https://www.cbsnews.com/election-resul...l?state=MI
|
| |
|
|
| Mresuperstar |
Posted on 07-11-2012 22:13
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8058
Joined: 22-06-2009
PCM$: 650.00
|
Crommy wrote:
Using that logic our votes aren't equal anymore. More people are called James and therefore would favor politics that benefit people called James. However considering I am not called James, as is most of Michigan, how can we stand up for what we believe in as the majority of the people of Michigan if James' puts through policy that benefits them and not Michigan as a whole? Sounds rather unfair to me. And not equal.
Didn't that just prove my point? Then if your not called James then you would want your vote still to count. Whenever your on the losing side you want your vote to count. This current system doesn't do that. Popular vote does but it allows cities to much power. My proposed system does both... It limits city powers and gives everyone's vote a chance.
I'm struggling to see were the major flaws are in this? It bring the best of both popular and electoral college together.
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 07-11-2012 22:18
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
You can't change by stayng the same.
And the electoral college is a piece of crap no matter who won.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 07-11-2012 22:19
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think it rather disproves your point. In this metaphor you are a James. The majority of the state is not James. But if James policies win over the non-James policies, and the non James votes were more numerous, then it is an unfair election. The side that got fewer votes won.
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 07-11-2012 22:24
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mresuperstar wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Using that logic our votes aren't equal anymore. More people are called James and therefore would favor politics that benefit people called James. However considering I am not called James, as is most of Michigan, how can we stand up for what we believe in as the majority of the people of Michigan if James' puts through policy that benefits them and not Michigan as a whole? Sounds rather unfair to me. And not equal.
Didn't that just prove my point? Then if your not called James then you would want your vote still to count. Whenever your on the losing side you want your vote to count. This current system doesn't do that. Popular vote does but it allows cities to much power. My proposed system does both... It limits city powers and gives everyone's vote a chance.
I'm struggling to see were the major flaws are in this? It bring the best of both popular and electoral college together.
Let's try again. Replace city with Christian, and everyone else as Muslim.
Now what's your opinion on it?
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 07-11-2012 22:29
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Crommy wrote:
Levi4life wrote:
Another result, one which has gone a bit under the radar, is that Puerto Rico voted for statehood. It has to be approved by Congress first though.
Chances of that happening?
0% We would have to add another star to the flag and 50 is such a nice number. 
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
