New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

End winner take all in the electoral college and let the true voice of the people be heard.

EatTheRich

President
Oh, so you really didn't mean to compare California to Wyoming now? LOL. Electors are the result of INDIVIDUAL elections, not nationally. We don't award California's voters the electoral votes that come from Mississippi. That's what you are pushing for. If states want to divy up their electoral votes there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Petition you leaders in Colorado to do so since you are so outraged that Trump voters in your state were shut out in the last election.

A 10-0 win is equal to a 1-0 win in the World Series. You can scream and cry all you want about that but the World Series is set up to deliver the champion to who can win the most GAMES, not score the most total runs. Same with the EC. It's setup to deliver victory to who can claim the most states, not who can run up a vote total in poverty-stricken blue population centers.

Understand now?
The intent being to build in an advantage for the rich who to a greater extent call the shots in rural areas, at the expense of the urban masses who are thereby increasingly impoverished.
 

EatTheRich

President
True. We aren't lefties. We don't seek to kill the most vulnerable among us, support communism, pander to the lazy, riot, commit crime, refuse to work. You get the point.

Thanks for pointing that out to us again.
Projection ... big time.
 

EatTheRich

President
I never said anything about acreage. I said STATES. Congress is setup the same way. States are all given equal say in the Senate and population determines the say in the House. The EC and the makeup in Congress are identical in that regard. It's a compromise between giving the states rights while giving population centers MORE of a say. Populated states can win control of Congress if they can get a few of the least populated states on board with them. They can't when the rest of America rejects them. It's a good compromise.
“Giving the states rights”=exalting the state at the expense of individuals=statism.
 

EatTheRich

President
Yeah, I'm not interested in 'democratic' as much as I am representative. The direct 'democracy' so many on the left advocate for is simply mob rule that devolves into anarchy.

Don't forget that the proportional allocation could make trouble when the electoral college shows up to cast its votes. You could end up with a brokered president-elect old school style.
A reliable predictor of statist politics: a phobic reaction to the mere mention of “anarchy.”
 

EatTheRich

President
Wait, what? How is that not a de facto elimination of the EC? It was put in the Constitution PRECISELY to do what you want to render it incapable of - allow the big cities to set the national agenda. It's exact purpose is in keeping with the founders' intention that the federal government have limited power over the states (individuals).
No. The intention is to limit the power of individuals over the federal government by filtering their ability to affect it through the agency of states that are exalted at the individuals’ expense.
 

EatTheRich

President
The fallacy in your logic is two-fold - 1) Your stat is misleading in that it only counts cities and not the surrounding metropolitan areas (which mostly reflect the city politically), which vastly enlarges their advantage and, 2) the suggestion that the 85% of the population that doesn't live in "big cities" votes differently than the 15% who do is, of course, insipid. The large liberal populations in the metropolitan areas (more like probably 33% of the voters) only need a minority of the remaining votes to impose their will on the nation. That is what the founders were trying to prevent...
Yup. Getting a huge majority in the cities AND suburbs and a strong minority in the rural areas is what’s known as “broad appeal.” Instead the Founders saddled us with a system designed to allow candidates lacking broad appeal to beat those who had it.
 

EatTheRich

President
Which is EXACTLY what the Founders did not want.

Popular vote you can BUY- even easier than it is now.

Texas State Republicans can promise Guns for every GOP vote.
California State can offer free sex changes for every Democrat Vote


I have yet to figure out why my leftist base wants to go to a King Like Popular Vote Democracy.

It's 50 SEPARATE little elections.

Win 2 states like Cali and NY and lose 48 states and win ? Nope.
Not what they wanted

Just like Hillary in 2016 It did NOT show she had more support nationwide, only that she is a candidate popular in one very populous state
She won 20 states and posted strong minorities in 30 others. If only her votes in California had counted, she would have lost the popular vote in a landslide.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Which is EXACTLY what the Founders did not want.

Popular vote you can BUY- even easier than it is now.

Texas State Republicans can promise Guns for every GOP vote.
California State can offer free sex changes for every Democrat Vote


I have yet to figure out why my leftist base wants to go to a King Like Popular Vote Democracy.

It's 50 SEPARATE little elections.

Win 2 states like Cali and NY and lose 48 states and win ? Nope.
Not what they wanted

Just like Hillary in 2016 It did NOT show she had more support nationwide, only that she is a candidate popular in one very populous state
So you actually think she got 66 million votes in California?
 

Spamature

President
Neither of those guys are real republicans, and you know it. Certainly not "conservatives." It only "proves" that the only "bipartisanship" that is acceptable to you lefties is when republicans start acting just like democrats.
Both were elected as Republicans. If they aren't Republicans then no one is. The very idea that Rudy isn't a Republican is completely ridiculous. He isn't just a Republican, he a Republican operative of the highest order.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
He made the statement about cities, then said he didn't, then claimed he was right in the first place....

Of course he has you right behind him. Proof I'm right and both of you suck at actually proving anything.
I said I didn't say that because I didn't remember saying it - and it at first sounded silly when you rephrased it - but upon reflection it was, of course, 100% correct. Clearly the population centers were even more concentrated back then as compared to rural areas than today, and the Founders were clearly trying to protect the rights of those in non-populous areas from the whims of those in the cities (and surrounding areas). That's the reason I have people here who will defend me - because, unlike you, I so rarely say something that cannot be demonstrated (eventually) to be 100% correct. I would simply point people to your whole multi-year pimping of the Russian "collusion" hoax as the best example.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Certainly for my by standing little ole self.


You've proven nothing because proof wasn't the point of it all. Rather it was reputation - yours.
Yes, he mistook my forgetting what I had said for denying I had said something that was not correct. And now he will try and beat that dead horse into the ground in a failed effort to try and prove it was the latter. As I demonstrated with the map, it was the former, and my point stands - the founders were, in fact, interested in protecting the rights of the rural population from the whims of the people living in the Boston/New York/Philadelphia (big city) corridor.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Both were elected as Republicans. If they aren't Republicans then no one is. The very idea that Rudy isn't a Republican is completely ridiculous. He isn't just a Republican, he a Republican operative of the highest order.
So you have one "real Republican" out of three. That really doesn't make your argument all that persuasive. But, as usual, you make an unintended point - this movement is designed to make the American conservatives every bit as "conservative" as their European counterparts - and by that I mean "not really conservative at all."
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Yup. Getting a huge majority in the cities AND suburbs and a strong minority in the rural areas is what’s known as “broad appeal.” Instead the Founders saddled us with a system designed to allow candidates lacking broad appeal to beat those who had it.
Look, you aren't the best spokesperson for this leftist wet dream of political domination. How long after this change takes effect before you start advocating for laws that allow you to hunt (and eat) the "rich?"
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
No. The intention is to limit the power of individuals over the federal government by filtering their ability to affect it through the agency of states that are exalted at the individuals’ expense.
That is precisely 180 degrees wrong. You know as well as I do that Marxism is NOT designed to protect "individuals." In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. So stop pretending you are supporting a policy here that puts individuals over the "state." That is patently absurd!
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You said cities, not cities and anyone within 400 miles. Your argument is getting funnier by the minute....
If the surrounding ex-urbs and suburbs didn't tend to align more closely with the cities they surround than the rural areas 100 miles or more out, you would have a point here. That they do makes this post of yours here a pedantic navel gaze, (I know, no one here is shocked by that, am I right?) rather than an actual argument.
 
Top