• 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!

The Electoral College: Purpose, Problems, Alternatives

NWRatCon said:
Are you advocating succession? How else does one avoid either outcome?
Click to expand...

What dictations do we give the good rural folks of Sandpoint other then to stop being neonazis? How do we dictate life to the country folks? Is forcing them to treat everyone equally such a burden for them? I guess so.
 
prometeus said:
So it was just a gimmick then that needs to be corrected now.
Click to expand...

230 years is a hell of a long time to have in place a mathematical affirmative action program for small states.
 
Aberration said:
Your vote doesn’t count any less. You simply misunderstand the context of your vote. You vote in California, in your district, for who your district picks for President. Not all States are winner take all electorals. The context of your vote is not a national popular 50+1 election. [emoji2369]
Click to expand...

Your post is belied by math, reality, and a whole lot of other things, and has been explicitly refuted several times in this thread. Let me catch you up: The Funky Math of the Electoral College (Scientific American)
 
Aberration said:
Which is not the same as winning.
Click to expand...

In most realities it is. Your posts are not making any sense, nor following reality. There are so many logical faults in such short posts it would be burdensome to correct them all.
 
It gets difficult to continue an intelligent discussion on a topic when so many of the posts are just regurgitation of partisan talking points devoid of original (or any) thought, and drift so far from facts and logic.
 
Last edited:
Vadinho said:
An insult from you would be a compliment, I see very little in your posts or thinking worthy of anything but scorn and pity.
Click to expand...

How about you three focus on discussion and stop throwing barbs all the time? I have been discussing the topic throughout and between the three of you, each of you have managed to make a personal comment.
 
haymarket said:
230 years is a hell of a long time to have in place a mathematical affirmative action program for small states.
Click to expand...

Trying to flip the table with the race card. But since the race card has been thrown so much we are getting out a new deck, why not.
 
OpportunityCost said:
How about you three focus on discussion and stop throwing barbs all the time? I have been discussing the topic throughout and between the three of you, each of you have managed to make a personal comment.
Click to expand...

Is not the idea, supported by you, that your vote is more important then my vote not an insult in and of itself? In a nation that pretends to be of and for the people, you seem to think that diluting my vote in favor of your vote is something that I should not consider an insult and an attack upon my right to equal protection. I find this to be far more insulting then a mere comment, it goes to the very foundation of what we all believe is true, namely, that every person can vote and that every vote is counted the same. I find that to be an injustice far worse then a mere verbal jab.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Trying to flip the table with the race card. But since the race card has been thrown so much we are getting out a new deck, why not.
Click to expand...

Race had nothing to do with it. Are you unobservant or dishonest?
 
Vadinho said:
Is not the idea, supported by you, that your vote is more important then my vote not an insult in and of itself? In a nation that pretends to be of and for the people, you seem to think that diluting my vote in favor of your vote is something that I should not consider an insult and an attack upon my right to equal protection. I find this to be far more insulting then a mere comment, it goes to the very foundation of what we all believe is true, namely, that every person can vote and that every vote is counted the same. I find that to be an injustice far worse then a mere verbal jab.
Click to expand...

Dude, I live in Illinois, my GOP/conservative vote means a hell of a lot less than yours does.
 
NWRatCon said:
Race had nothing to do with it. Are you unobservant or dishonest?
Click to expand...

Affirmative action is defined by race, why are you trying to change definitions? Again, do not characterize me, address the ****ing posts.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Dude, I live in Illinois, my GOP/conservative vote means a hell of a lot less than yours does.
Click to expand...

I lived in DuPage county when a GOP vote used to mean a lot. That's probably no longer true though.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You don't seem to understand, the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified without it. It was a compromise to get it passed, to ensure the voices of smaller states would still be heard.
Click to expand...

So let them have the same number of senators so their voice can be heard.

Allowing them a greater say in picking the winner of a presidential election is a little more than having their voices heard.
 
Rich2018 said:
So let them have the same number of senators so their voice can be heard.

Allowing them a greater say in picking the winner of a presidential election is a little more than having their voices heard.
Click to expand...

it was called the big state/little state compromise. Big states got the House and little states got the Senate. 1+1=2
 
James972 said:
it was called the big state/little state compromise. Big states got the House and little states got the Senate. 1+1=2
Click to expand...



Of course that's not the case if the GOP has the House

Strange that

1 + 1 = what again ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Of course that's not the case if the GOP has the House
Click to expand...

dear, what's not the case??????? You clean forgot to say. Write in complete thoughts
 
James972 said:
dear, what's not the case??????? You clean forgot to say. Write in complete thoughts
Click to expand...

STOP your insults

Please read properly

The case is what if the GOP control the House, given its boundary advantage in the EC and by extension the senate elections - which you did say they'd win even if the Democrats have enough support to take the House.
 
haymarket said:
Polls predict peoples support for a candidate or position. And they did their job in 2016. They were extremely accurate.

The vote for president is a vote for a NATIONAL office. A person is president over the NATION. And all votes for that office are NOT weighed equally.

Presidential election: A map showing the vote power of all 50 states.

We do not need mathematical affirmative action for some Americans at the expense of others and that is what the map clearly shows is happening with the EC.
Click to expand...

The nation disagrees with you.
 
Vadinho said:
We are not treated equally under the concept of one man, one vote in regards to choosing the President. As for splitting states, how about we merge states? North and South Dakota becomes Dakota. Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska becomes the Great Plains. Or how about adding a couple states, Guam and the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico and DC. Take three out, add three in.
Click to expand...

Yes you are. We all equally choose our electors for President. The concept of one man one vote was never intended in regards to choosing President.

Merging States does not solve the problem of the lack of representation. Only splitting does that. DC can’t be a State, by definition of the Constitution. None of current territories want to be States.
 
Vadinho said:
What dictations do we give the good rural folks of Sandpoint other then to stop being neonazis? How do we dictate life to the country folks? Is forcing them to treat everyone equally such a burden for them? I guess so.
Click to expand...

This ignorant and vapid opinion of country folk is exactly why the EC exists.
 
NWRatCon said:
Your post is belied by math, reality, and a whole lot of other things, and has been explicitly refuted several times in this thread. Let me catch you up: The Funky Math of the Electoral College (Scientific American)
Click to expand...

There is only funky math when you try to apply the math outside of the context. Like trying to describe a square using pi.

What exactly was refuted by these supposed numerous explicit posts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom