You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:Guess I'm not the only one who knows why the Democrats are suddenly against the electoral college:
Of gimme abfucking break. Bill Luffa O'Reilly. Yeah... Suddenly, as in 17 years they've been screaming against the electorate from the laser time the election was stolen from the winner. There's always a conspiracy. Some hidden agenda in the murky depths of the left... Who have no influence whatsoever. How about Republican state officials shutting down Democratic districts early on election day? Or the unfair redistricting? Old Luffa man ever talk about that?
Now Trump is literally doing pay to play. Give his sons charity a million bucks to talk to the president privately… what was he, and you guys railing about with The Clinton Foundation?
If this is true it should be immediately stopped and if any laws were broken they should be investigated. But where were you when Clinton received donations from half the people she met with as SoS? Is this a new concern or something you chose to remain silent on in the past? Or was it just you were completely unaware of it because the media wasn't interested in tarnishing the queen bee?
I don't even know if this is completely true...but I was aware...I just don't care...
Because Republicans- the people who took great exception - are the inventors of these business practices.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:If you want to pass a bill that removes humans from the EC and requires EVs to be proportional to the candidates in each state, sign me up.
I'd rather just do away with the electorate. Or get the dozen or so more states to basically neuter the whole electorate with a popular vote mandate, which will probably end up happening. Especially when this finally happens to a Republican.
Only heavily blue states have passed it and you assume it wouldn't be struck down in state or federal supreme courts. Denying the will of people in state x because states A,B and C voted a certain way isn't Democratic and certainly isn't in line with the intent behind the EC. But if states want to go that route, let them do so and we'll see what happens.
This is a laugh. You believe in States rights only when you agree with what they do. And you're assuming it would get struck down. The best way to fix it, just Get rid of of the EC. You're denying the will of the people by not counting their vote. And the electorate doesn't even have to vote the way the state does. This election showed what a joke it really is.
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:misterID wrote:It would have no influence on how people in Wyoming live. Jesus Christ, that's a weak ass, scared as shit way of thinking. I have a way better argument that the people in Wyoming shouldn't be dictating the way California and everyone else lives. Yes, she should have campaigned better, as I voiced, but she still won by three million votes. *President Trump is still acting like a moron, putting together one of the worst cabinets in history. Linda McMahon is getting a cabinet position. The woman who couldn't buy a legit political seat.... TWICE. But because her husband is one of his best friends... Cronyism at its best.
Right, cause people in San Francisco aren't opining and trying to legislate laws that only effect Wyoming. Pelosi is really pushing for wolves to be introduced into downtown SF and not just by ranchers in the Rocky Mountain region.
Obama didn't just try to permanently prevent anyone from ever drilling off the Alaskan coast. (His edict won't hold up in court).
States are a thing. Wyoming's 3 EVs have no influence on Californians.
If we were consistently following the EC formula...Wyoming wouldn't even have 3 EVs.
This. And I believe California should get even more electorates, shouldn't it?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:misterID wrote:It would have no influence on how people in Wyoming live. Jesus Christ, that's a weak ass, scared as shit way of thinking. I have a way better argument that the people in Wyoming shouldn't be dictating the way California and everyone else lives. Yes, she should have campaigned better, as I voiced, but she still won by three million votes. *President Trump is still acting like a moron, putting together one of the worst cabinets in history. Linda McMahon is getting a cabinet position. The woman who couldn't buy a legit political seat.... TWICE. But because her husband is one of his best friends... Cronyism at its best.
Right, cause people in San Francisco aren't opining and trying to legislate laws that only effect Wyoming. Pelosi is really pushing for wolves to be introduced into downtown SF and not just by ranchers in the Rocky Mountain region.
Obama didn't just try to permanently prevent anyone from ever drilling off the Alaskan coast. (His edict won't hold up in court).
States are a thing. Wyoming's 3 EVs have no influence on Californians.
If we were consistently following the EC formula...Wyoming wouldn't even have 3 EVs.
We are though. The constitution is quite clear every state has 2 senators and an amount of representatives based on population with no less than 1. If you want to start a discussion about dissolving the Senate and relying only on the House, I'll be interested in joining you. But until we amend the constitution, that is how it works.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:Right, cause people in San Francisco aren't opining and trying to legislate laws that only effect Wyoming. Pelosi is really pushing for wolves to be introduced into downtown SF and not just by ranchers in the Rocky Mountain region.
Obama didn't just try to permanently prevent anyone from ever drilling off the Alaskan coast. (His edict won't hold up in court).
States are a thing. Wyoming's 3 EVs have no influence on Californians.
If we were consistently following the EC formula...Wyoming wouldn't even have 3 EVs.
We are though. The constitution is quite clear every state has 2 senators and an amount of representatives based on population with no less than 1. If you want to start a discussion about dissolving the Senate and relying only on the House, I'll be interested in joining you. But until we amend the constitution, that is how it works.
I'm not talking about senators. EVs are based on population.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:mitchejw wrote:If we were consistently following the EC formula...Wyoming wouldn't even have 3 EVs.
We are though. The constitution is quite clear every state has 2 senators and an amount of representatives based on population with no less than 1. If you want to start a discussion about dissolving the Senate and relying only on the House, I'll be interested in joining you. But until we amend the constitution, that is how it works.
I'm not talking about senators. EVs are based on population.
EVs are based on population through the amount of federal legislators in each state. The EV in each state is tied to how many senators and representatives they have. The amount of representatives each state has is based on their 10 year census. No state will have less than 3 and under our current system of 50 states, no state will ever exceed 391.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:We are though. The constitution is quite clear every state has 2 senators and an amount of representatives based on population with no less than 1. If you want to start a discussion about dissolving the Senate and relying only on the House, I'll be interested in joining you. But until we amend the constitution, that is how it works.
I'm not talking about senators. EVs are based on population.
EVs are based on population through the amount of federal legislators in each state. The EV in each state is tied to how many senators and representatives they have. The amount of representatives each state has is based on their 10 year census. No state will have less than 3 and under our current system of 50 states, no state will ever exceed 391.
So there are several states that are overly and under represented. The entire population of California greatly exceeds that of Idaho, Montana, north and South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, Utah, Iowa, and Arizona combined.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:mitchejw wrote:I'm not talking about senators. EVs are based on population.
EVs are based on population through the amount of federal legislators in each state. The EV in each state is tied to how many senators and representatives they have. The amount of representatives each state has is based on their 10 year census. No state will have less than 3 and under our current system of 50 states, no state will ever exceed 391.
So there are several states that are overly and under represented. The entire population of California greatly exceeds that of Idaho, Montana, north and South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, Utah, Iowa, and Arizona combined.
? The constitution outlines how EVs are handled. Nothing is under or over represented because the rules are clearly defined. Or are you suggesting states with smaller populations should have no EVs?
California had 37.2 million people in the 2010 census. There were 309 million people counted in the US in 2010. Meaning California had approx 12% of the population. Based on their 55 EVs, that puts California at around 10% of the EV count. Trump beat Clinton 306 to 232. Even if you gave California an additional 2% of the EC, or an extra 11 EVs based solely on their population, it would still be 295-243 and Trump would still be President. Of course this is all based on both campaigning under the EC, so it seems quite reasonable to assume Trump would have campaigned in CA should the PV be how we determine our president.
Furthermore, CA has approx 2.4 million illegal immigrants that are counted in its census, so the population of CA in 2010 should have been closer to 35 million, reducing their EV by approx 10%. So one can certainly argue that California is currently over represented in the EC because they have a disproportionate amount of illegal immigrants residing there which are credited to their overall population.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
When you guys try to pull some shit on Randall he comes back so hard with facts it gets silent in here quick. All that said, nobody said fuck about the EC prior to the vote and now it must be abolished. Only Mitch said he isn't asking for it to be abolished. ID, where was your EC outrage prior to the election?
