Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

knapplc said:
It's objective fact based off math.  Your opinion is that you don't want to lose the disproportional power the EC gives rural voters. Math says 1 person = 1 vote.
Click to expand...


You can say it over and over and over, that doesn't make it right.

1 person DOES equal 1 vote currently.  And once those 1 votes are tallied, they decide each state.  It is basic math!

 
Redux said:
You can say it over and over and over, that doesn't make it right.

1 person DOES equal 1 vote currently.  And once those 1 votes are tallied, they decide each state.  It is basic math!
Click to expand...


If one person equaled one vote today's procedure wouldn't be happening. 

This is all a ploy by republicans and rural folks to disproportionally hold power over the majority of Americans. It is anti-democratic. 

 
knapplc said:
If one person equaled one vote today's procedure wouldn't be happening. 

This is all a ploy by republicans and rural folks to disproportionally hold power over the majority of Americans. It is anti-democratic. 
Click to expand...


No it's not, and that reasoning is a ploy to manipulate people into thinking all votes are the same.  They are not.  State lines exist and we shouldn't pretend that they don't.

 
If we use basic math and ignore Nebraska and Maine's individual districts (which would actually be better for every state to adopt) the math checks out like this:

California had 17.8 million people vote, 70.8% of registered 

Nebraska had 950k people vote, 74% of registered 

Therefore each Nebraska's whopping 5 votes equals out to 1 EC vote per 190,000 votes.  California on the other hand has 55 votes meaning 323,636 votes per 1 EC vote.

So in that regard yes, Nebraska does in fact have more weight in terms of how many votes are behind each EC vote.  THAT should be adjusted.  Again, district voting makes more sense to me.

 
Redux said:
See previous response, because it's the President of the United States.  States govern individually.  Those "imaginary" lines exist to protect individual state laws etc.  Why ignore that there are 50 individual states when it comes to electing who presides over them all?  They are all different, why pretend that's not true?  I would like a candidate earn my states vote instead of only focusing on like 3 or 4 cities total.
Click to expand...
This is totally illogical and ignorant of basic civics. The president is not the leader of 50 individual states. That's what governors are for. The president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, which is distinctly different (and supercedes) the individual state governments. 

 
Ulty said:
This is totally illogical and ignorant of basic civics. The president is not the leader of 50 individual states. That's what governors are for. The president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, which is distinctly different (and supercedes) the individual state governments. 
Click to expand...


Cool, cool

 
Ulty said:
This is totally illogical and ignorant of basic civics. The president is not the leader of 50 individual states. That's what governors are for. The president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, which is distinctly different (and supercedes) the individual state governments. 
Click to expand...


I typed up nearly this exact response before deleting it because I realized I was talking to a guy who created a sock account to troll P&R. 

 
Archy1221 said:
What about the rest of the point.  If we would drastically change the way we do Presidential elections, why not make the other changes too in order to make a more representative government?   Why have a filibuster if we want majority rule?  Is there really a need for a Senate and a house or could we just have one big legislative body for majority rule that represents the will of the people?  
Click to expand...
Because the rest of your post was an obvious attempt to create a fog over something you're uncomfortable acknowledging. Instead of arguing the merits and facts of what was said, you tried to dismiss it with the wave of a hand and then interject unrelated issues.

It'd be like me saying "I think green could be a better color than yellow," and then you saying, "well, green existing is a poor reason to want it, but also then why don't we just make pesto the only condiment instead of mustard."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
Because the rest of your post was an obvious attempt to create a fog over something you're uncomfortable acknowledging. Instead of arguing the merits and facts of what was said, you tried to dismiss it with the wave of a hand and then interject unrelated issues.

It'd be like me saying "I think green could be a better color than yellow," and then you saying, "well, green existing is a poor reason to want it, but also then why don't we just make pesto the only condiment instead of mustard."
Click to expand...
What exactly am I uncomfortable acknowledging?   I don’t believe the EC is a bad system.  You do.  Fine.  But just saying other countries do it another way so we should too, doesn’t present a compelling argument to me.  
 

should we restructure our legislative body and judicial bodies to mimic what ‘other countries’ do?  
 

We have three equal branches of Government and each is put into place in a different way.  I’m fine with that because it’s another check on the system of government.  
 

 
Back
Top