You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
a map from the American catholic.....wow.....who gives a shit?
Get used to it because you're never going to get 38 states to pass an amendment changing it. California shouldn't dictate the election.
I'm still not sure what you're arguing here....is this the beginning of an argument that basically states the physical size of your state should dictate your influence on the election? If so, Montana and Alaska should have 100 electoral votes.
California has 55 EVs....and they deserve them all.
Furthermore, Hillary got 3 million more popular votes than Drumpf...whether that matters in the EC or not is not debatable....but it sure does matter in general.
Are you purporting that losing the popular vote by that margin but still winning the EC makes this an obvious mandate for President Drumpf?
Are you suggesting that somehow California's population, larger than any other state, shouldn't be allocated the number of EVs it has? That a representative democracy would be better served if they weren't proportionately represented?
Are you arguing that the misleading map from Catholic America...the map that treats the physical size of the country/state/county as the metric for showing you how the country voted. The same map that shows Cook County, Illinois to be an ant hill but the state of South Dakota and Wyoming as mountains next to said ant hill....when the combined populations of both states are about 10% of cook county AT BEST!
C'mon man...show me those critical thinking skill.....
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:No way, we have an ec to protect the rights of slave owners. Every vote should matter.
That's horse shit. The EC had nothing to do with slavery. Another bullshit lie with no basis in fact. The EC was all about protecting low population states from the tyranny of the majority. Read the fucking federalist papers. Point in case, calling something racist because you lack the knowledge and ability to argue your point.
Get used to it because you're never going to get 38 states to pass an amendment changing it. California shouldn't dictate the election.
Do your fuckin history, chump. James Madison:
"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."
Best described by Time:
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
Akhil Reed Amar Nov. 8, 2016 Updated: Nov. 10, 2016 2:19 PM ET
The Founding Fathers had something particular in mind when they set up the U.S. presidential election system: slavery
As Americans await the quadrennial running of the presidential obstacle course now known as the Electoral College, it’s worth remembering why we have this odd political contraption in the first place. After all, state governors in all 50 states are elected by popular vote; why not do the same for the governor of all states, a.k.a. the president? The quirks of the Electoral College system were exposed this week when Donald Trump secured the presidency with an Electoral College majority, even as Hillary Clinton took a narrow lead in the popular vote.
Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.
One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.
This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what.
Although the Philadelphia framers did not anticipate the rise of a system of national presidential parties, the 12th Amendment—proposed in 1803 and ratified a year later— was framed with such a party system in mind, in the aftermath of the election of 1800-01. In that election, two rudimentary presidential parties—Federalists led by John Adams and Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson—took shape and squared off. Jefferson ultimately prevailed, but only after an extended crisis triggered by several glitches in the Framers’ electoral machinery. In particular, Republican electors had no formal way to designate that they wanted Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president rather than vice versa. Some politicians then tried to exploit the resulting confusion.
Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment’s modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers’ framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the 12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?
"Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves."
And you're wrong again, several states passed laws that the electorate must follow the popular vote. We just need a dozen or so states to follow and the EC will be worth as much as my cats used kitty litter 
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Do you know what "obviate" means?
Are you serious. You can't even refer to the fucking federalist papers on your own. You're that fucking misinformed. So you find some article that made a lazy argument for you. It takes one quote, out of context, and uses a big word you obviously don't fucking know. If Madison obviated it, it means it was a solution to a non existent argument or problem before it manifested. In the larger context of the electoral college, he realized it could be exploited and had a solution before it was even thought of. Kind of like how the Democrats couldn't win with the demographics of the 20th century America, so they've found a back door via illegal Hispanics who vote democratic once legalized 2nd only to blacks in percentage.
Take one second and think outside your bubble. Read the fucking federalist papers and maybe you'll learn something. Read Federalist Papers 68 and tell me what slavery had to do with it.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
It's not controversial. Before the election, Democrats condescendingly told everyone to accept the results and get in line. Now they're doing anything but. And if they would have won, they would have been screaming bloody murder at this level of challenge of the results. I don't like hypocrisy. On either side. I also have no problem with debate or disagreement. People disagree with me all the time. Such is life.
Re: US Politics Thread
Do you know what "obviate" means?
Are you serious. You can't even refer to the fucking federalist papers on your own. You're that fucking misinformed. So you find some article that made a lazy argument for you. It takes one quote, out of context, and uses a big word you obviously don't fucking know. If Madison obviated it, it means it was a solution to a non existent argument or problem before it manifested. In the larger context of the electoral college, he realized it could be exploited and had a solution before it was even thought of. Kind of like how the Democrats couldn't win with the demographics of the 20th century America, so they've found a back door via illegal Hispanics who vote democratic once legalized 2nd only to blacks in percentage.
Take one second and think outside your bubble. Read the fucking federalist papers and maybe you'll learn something. Read Federalist Papers 68 and tell me what slavery had to do with it.
Sorry, it was meant for slave holders. And beyond thast, the EC took power away from the voters because they only believed a certain kind of white man should decide the election. You need to get out of your bubble with your LIE about illegals voting.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
The maps are not misleading though. The entire point is tho show exactly why we have the electoral college. 2.6 of Hillary's 2.8M popular vote advantage can be attributed to JUST her difference in LA and NYC. Two cities. That's it.
Every single person in LA or NYC didn't vote for Clinton either... the map is showing only 51% and more because 50% would cancel out the other vote and less than 50% wouldn't matter when trying to show who won what.
Re: US Politics Thread
It's not controversial. Before the election, Democrats condescendingly told everyone to accept the results and get in line. Now they're doing anything but. And if they would have won, they would have been screaming bloody murder at this level of challenge of the results. I don't like hypocrisy. On either side. I also have no problem with debate or disagreement. People disagree with me all the time. Such is life.
You're right. Nearly 60% of Americans are pessimistic about Trump's presidency. They should have voted more. And their votes should count.
Re: US Politics Thread
The maps are not misleading though. The entire point is tho show exactly why we have the electoral college. 2.6 of Hillary's 2.8M popular vote advantage can be attributed to JUST her difference in LA and NYC. Two cities. That's it.
Every single person in LA or NYC didn't vote for Clinton either... the map is showing only 51% and more because 50% would cancel out the other vote and less than 50% wouldn't matter when trying to show who won what.
Every. Vote. Should. Count. Those people should elect their president.
Re: US Politics Thread
The maps are not misleading though. The entire point is tho show exactly why we have the electoral college. 2.6 of Hillary's 2.8M popular vote advantage can be attributed to JUST her difference in LA and NYC. Two cities. That's it.
Every single person in LA or NYC didn't vote for Clinton either... the map is showing only 51% and more because 50% would cancel out the other vote and less than 50% wouldn't matter when trying to show who won what.
It is entirely misleading....the map disproportionately weights counties with nobody in them. NYC and LA are the two largest cities in the county. People living on top of each other in physically small but highly dense populations.
It's like your saying that if your live in the city your votes should count less because we live so close together.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:The maps are not misleading though. The entire point is tho show exactly why we have the electoral college. 2.6 of Hillary's 2.8M popular vote advantage can be attributed to JUST her difference in LA and NYC. Two cities. That's it.
Every single person in LA or NYC didn't vote for Clinton either... the map is showing only 51% and more because 50% would cancel out the other vote and less than 50% wouldn't matter when trying to show who won what.
It is entirely misleading....the map disproportionately weights counties with nobody in them. NYC and LA are the two largest cities in the county. People living on top of each other in physically small but highly dense populations.
It's like your saying that if your live in the city your votes should count less because we live so close together.
No, I am not saying that at all.... that said they are subject to a group think mentality lol. And not everyone in NYC OR LA voted for HRC. However if this was a popular vote, more republicans would vote in those states. Many don't bother because they know they have no shot.
