View Poll Results: Should dirt be allowed to vote?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, land matters not people!

    7 20.00%
  • No.

    10 28.57%
  • This poll is dumb. People posting those maps are dishonest/idiots

    18 51.43%
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59

Thread: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

  1. #31
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Romney backers are posting election results via county (just as McCain voters and Bush voters did in 2000-2008).

    Their argument is essentially a sea of red in America means for some reason that Obama/Kerry/Gore are clearly losers.

    Except that they ignore that much of that space is essentially empty land. Hawaii has more electoral votes then several Republican voting states but has far less land, because it has far more people.

    Therefore, if we take the logic they are pushing, that land, not people matter, should dirt be allowed to vote?
    I'd prefer dirt over those who are ignorant of the issues and sucking up our tax dollars

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    This is another example of how the nation is polarized and divided.

    This one is chiefly urban/rural.... or at least, big city vs small town and countryside.


    Small town and country people are more accustomed to functioning in a low-population-density environment, with far less interaction with other people, and FAR less interaction with government and government services.

    By necessity, country folks and small-town folks are more accustomed to "doing for yourself" and more likely to take an attitude of "just leave me alone and I'll be fine".


    It is another example of how "one size fits all government" doesn't work very well, and possibly an argument for decentralization.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #33
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,920

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I understand thier reasoning. Its pretty disheartening to see just a few counties appear to matter more than the majority of counties in any given state. The whole state is suppose to matter and make a difference, not one or two counties.

    But you are right that it is the people that matter and the reason that its just a few counties that "appear" to matter more than the rest is beacause that is where the majority of people live. The solid red and blue is illusionary. I would bet that if you used dots instead of solid colors the whole thing would look more purple than red or blue in most (not all) counties across the US.
    People wonder what is wrong with the electorial college. It winner take all, thats wrong. California would only be worth 30 electorial votes instead of 55 for the Democrate. Because of winner take all popular vote wins in these populus states and skews the results. People live in different areas those areas should be represented thats what the electorial college was orginaly for. The winner of the popular vote would only generaly win his didtricts plus the 2 extras, the rest would go to the other canidates. Because of winner take all my state which does have heavy amount of very conservative voters are NOT represented. Basically if there is one more vote for a canidate that canidate gets ALL the electorial votes even though they one by one vote. It needs to be the way they do it in Nebraska which is divide the electorial votes up according to the candidates take of the vote. Otherwise you may as well go to popular vote. Then the big cities will out vote the rest of the country. Big cities shouldnt be setting policy for the rural areas.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  4. #34
    User Common's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    12-17-13 @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    53

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    People wonder what is wrong with the electorial college. It winner take all, thats wrong. California would only be worth 30 electorial votes instead of 55 for the Democrate. Because of winner take all popular vote wins in these populus states and skews the results. People live in different areas those areas should be represented thats what the electorial college was orginaly for. The winner of the popular vote would only generaly win his didtricts plus the 2 extras, the rest would go to the other canidates. Because of winner take all my state which does have heavy amount of very conservative voters are NOT represented. Basically if there is one more vote for a canidate that canidate gets ALL the electorial votes even though they one by one vote. It needs to be the way they do it in Nebraska which is divide the electorial votes up according to the candidates take of the vote. Otherwise you may as well go to popular vote. Then the big cities will out vote the rest of the country. Big cities shouldnt be setting policy for the rural areas.
    I support this idea 100%. I suggest making a thread on it. If the winner take all system was outlawed, it would be a much better representation of the states. States like my own wouldn't be 100% republican every year but say get 75% of the votes. This would encourage candidates no to focus on a few swing states every four years.

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    People wonder what is wrong with the electorial college. It winner take all, thats wrong. California would only be worth 30 electorial votes instead of 55 for the Democrate. Because of winner take all popular vote wins in these populus states and skews the results. People live in different areas those areas should be represented thats what the electorial college was orginaly for. The winner of the popular vote would only generaly win his didtricts plus the 2 extras, the rest would go to the other canidates. Because of winner take all my state which does have heavy amount of very conservative voters are NOT represented. Basically if there is one more vote for a canidate that canidate gets ALL the electorial votes even though they one by one vote. It needs to be the way they do it in Nebraska which is divide the electorial votes up according to the candidates take of the vote. Otherwise you may as well go to popular vote. Then the big cities will out vote the rest of the country. Big cities shouldnt be setting policy for the rural areas.
    This is very true. To put it a bit more simply though....Originally the general populace did not elect the President. The general populace (specifically white landowners) was able to vote for the senators that sat in each states Senate and it was the State's Senate that chose the Electors, who in turn chose which Presidential candidate thier specific Electoral Votes went to.

    With the exception of only white land owners I do kinda wish that we would go back to that old system. It was a better way of determining who became President because it prevented mob mentality (popular vote) from determining how our country was run. And that was something which our Founding Fathers truely wished to avoid, the Mob Mentality. They knew that with mob mentality individual rights were more likely to be trampled or just plain ignored. It was also why Referendums for laws were not used originally also.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnny_rebson View Post
    Sure, Democrats should be allowed to vote, as long as they show valid ID.
    Implying that it is not necessary for tea-bagging conservatives to show any ID ???
    Other than a gun and a Bible.....

  7. #37
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Electoral map


    Electoral map normalized by population:


    The vast red spaces are nothing more than an illusion when you take people into account
    The conservatives are a "land" political party, while the liberals are a "people" party.....
    And the tea-baggers would love to regress to the 1600s when only land owners could vote.....which is no less true than the native Americans thing....There is a smidgen of truth here...

  8. #38
    Advisor melons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 09:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    376

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    I would like to throw an idea out there. How about the electoral college actually represent the population but dividing the electoral votes appropriately by percentages. If a state votes 60 percent one way and 40 percent another way, divide the electoral college votes that way. I didn't look to see if it would have changed any recent elections if it were done that way, but why wouldn't this be a more fair and balanced way to use the electoral vote?
    The Definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    Albert Einstein

  9. #39
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    Why not apportion the electoral votes based on the individual results in each congressional district within the states then award the extra 2 (Senatorial votes) to the winner of the per state congressional electoral votes. If it ends in a tie then split the 2. This COULD motivate candidates to visit more states and reduce the prevalence of ‘swing states’
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

    There are alot of us in the heart of America that feel like we have no real say in things and a few huge population centers along both coast in liberal cities run the show. This urban population makes decisions that directly effect rural areas and they do so based on alot of misinformation care of groups like the Sierra Club. We resent having our industrial base and our local economies savaged by these people who really don't have a clue. I don't know what the answer is though, in a democracy the majority rules and the majority of people are now far removed from the nuts and bolts industries that provide them with lifes ever day necessities and they tend to think rural America is a bunch of people missing their front teeth and marrying their cousins. This arrogant and condescending attitude is one of the reasons jobs go overseas as mines and sawmills are shut down due to absurd regulations that make it to expensive to operate in the USA.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •