• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should dirt be allowed to vote over people?

Should dirt be allowed to vote?

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
Fisher said:
Referring to republicans as dirt, which is what you are really doing backhandedly, is exactly the sort of class I would expect from the left....
Click to expand...

Dirtbag politicians come in all stripes, but always flaunting red, white, and blue and whatever political faction they have snookered. Does that make them Republicans? Not necessarily, could be any party. It's more like a gender, you know, dirt bags.
 
iSmear said:
But they did, in fact, inhabit America before the Europeans set foot on American soil.
Click to expand...

Yes they did. But thats not what I was correcting. He said that they were the original inhabitants. They were not.
 
Seems the GOP will DO ANYTHING to do an end run around losing the popular and electoral vote...this is really funny and pathetic at the same time....
 
Electoral map
RomneyObamaElectoralMap.jpg


Electoral map normalized by population:
2012+heat+map+by+population.PNG


The vast red spaces are nothing more than an illusion when you take people into account
 
As long as we are going full blown hackery...I REALLY like this map...
1000px-ElectoralCollege1984.svg.jpg

Talk about a landslide...:lamo
 
obvious Child said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'd prefer dirt over those who are ignorant of the issues and sucking up our tax dollars:lol:
 
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.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
megaprogman said:
Electoral map
RomneyObamaElectoralMap.jpg


Electoral map normalized by population:
2012+heat+map+by+population.PNG


The vast red spaces are nothing more than an illusion when you take people into account
Click to expand...
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...
 
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?
 
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’
 
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.
 
Most 'reasons' given for why cities count more are total distortions and the lack of understanding most often comes from diehard idealogues.

Small town rural towns have the typical welfare mother- white single teen to early twenties mom. EVERY two dot town has a nutrition site and the loss of it in a one dot town brings howls of protest. Small town schools employ everything a big city school district does for far fewer kids- but try and consolidate them to a more efficient configuration. Howls will greet you.

From education to farm subsidies small towns get nice Gubmint paychecks. Heck the Sheriff gets nice fed and state support to run his small dept. Meals on wheels to ambulance services. Nursing home subsidies to electric power price reductions. Red states routinely get more money back from DC than they send to the feds, yet they cluck at the idea of spending money in urban centers.

Seems odd to me, to support personal responsibility while grazing at the federal buffet on so many levels.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Where have you been for the last 2 years? Have you paid any attention to the House and Senate lately?
 
Heck, I'd vote FOR dirt over some of the candidates we've had.
 
Well, the electoral college was put in place specifically for this reason actually. Smaller population states are supposed to have more of a vote(by minimum), so yea essentially more dirt, more vote.
 
notquiteright said:
Most 'reasons' given for why cities count more are total distortions and the lack of understanding most often comes from diehard idealogues.

Small town rural towns have the typical welfare mother- white single teen to early twenties mom. EVERY two dot town has a nutrition site and the loss of it in a one dot town brings howls of protest. Small town schools employ everything a big city school district does for far fewer kids- but try and consolidate them to a more efficient configuration. Howls will greet you.

From education to farm subsidies small towns get nice Gubmint paychecks. Heck the Sheriff gets nice fed and state support to run his small dept. Meals on wheels to ambulance services. Nursing home subsidies to electric power price reductions. Red states routinely get more money back from DC than they send to the feds, yet they cluck at the idea of spending money in urban centers.

Seems odd to me, to support personal responsibility while grazing at the federal buffet on so many levels.
Click to expand...

If this were true then my district would have voted democrat.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If this were true then my district would have voted democrat.
Click to expand...

Despite what the conservatives are telling themselves, people voting for this or that political party has a much to do with their local culture (or more even) as it is about material goods.
 
Some more correct maps can be found here: Election maps

Some fascinating patterns to be found - for example, comparing the county-by-county

countymaprb1024.png


with the weighted version

countycartrb1024.png


shows what the power of cities have.

Also something of a commentary on electoral vs popular, though that's another matter...
 
iangb said:
Some more correct maps can be found here: Election maps

Some fascinating patterns to be found - for example, comparing the county-by-county

countymaprb1024.png


with the weighted version

countycartrb1024.png


shows what the power of cities have.

Also something of a commentary on electoral vs popular, though that's another matter...
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was looking for a county by county map yesterday :)
 
iangb said:
Some more correct maps can be found here: Election maps

Some fascinating patterns to be found - for example, comparing the county-by-county

countymaprb1024.png


with the weighted version

countycartrb1024.png


shows what the power of cities have.

Also something of a commentary on electoral vs popular, though that's another matter...
Click to expand...

If counties got electoral votes instead of states we would be run by Republicans. Good map.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom