Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drauz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...State_rankings

They would of course visit some surrounding states, but those 4 states would give you almost 33% of the vote.

---

Oh, are you talking about the dissolving the electoral college thing? The post you quoted was about ranked choice voting. That's why I'm confused. Anyway if that's what you're talking about, yeah, about 100 million people in those four states, one of which is heavily catered to now because it's deeply divided, but if you're only hoping to get a voter turnout from 100 million out of 330 million people, that's...not enough people to get you to win. You'll have to court ideas and issues adopted you know...widely...instead of in just a few specific states. That's the system we're in now, where you write off tons of states as won or lost already so you don't even bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

You bet your ass. One person, one vote.

The electoral college and Senate reps were set up during this nation's infancy. Those rules do not apply any more. There are 12 million more registered democrats than republicans in this democracy. The minority party has had the executive even after losing the total popular vote. The minority party, supposedly of less government, has also had both parts of Congress at the same time. If people are afraid of New York and California running things it's because their platform sucks, not because one person, one vote is flawed.

---

"One person, one vote" IS flawed. I just demonstrated why in the post you quoted. You're okay with fewer than 15% of the counties, almost all of which happen to be the richest counties, deciding who becomes president? You do know this is the main reason why France is on fire at the moment right? Because the French elite elected a globalist who only cared about the rich and wanted to ignore and tax the shit out of the more rural areas of France. This is why each state gets so many House members and Senators, to ensure each part of the country is represented and the large and powerful cities don't run the entire country. Look, Back, my man. You can be dumb all you want, that's the beauty of living in the US. But at least try to put forth an argument into your own words and stop repeating buzz words you hear on MSNBC such as "one person, one vote."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

FPTP/winner-take-all voting is balls, though.

---

Our Electoral College isn't really winner-take-all though, that's just the system most states decided to go with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

"One person, one vote" IS flawed. I just demonstrated why in the post you quoted. You're okay with fewer than 15% of the counties, almost all of which happen to be the richest counties, deciding who becomes president? You do know this is the main reason why France is on fire at the moment right? Because the French elite elected a globalist who only cared about the rich and wanted to ignore and tax the shit out of the more rural areas of France. This is why each state gets so many House members and Senators, to ensure each part of the country is represented and the large and powerful cities don't run the entire country. Look, Back, my man. You can be dumb all you want, that's the beauty of living in the US. But at least try to put forth an argument into your own words and stop repeating buzz words you hear on MSNBC such as "one person, one vote."



Our Electoral College isn't really winner-take-all though, that's just the system most states decided to go with.

---

I just wish back was able to understand things like this, but alas, he's a retard. Good on you for trying to help a retard, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Our Electoral College isn't really winner-take-all though, that's just the system most states decided to go with.

---

Dunno how you figure that. IIRC there are only two states that split the electoral vote, and whoever makes 270 wins. I may as well have not voted in my state for all the good it did me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

Dunno how you figure that. IIRC there are only two states that split the electoral vote, and whoever makes 270 wins. I may as well have not voted in my state for all the good it did me.

---

What I mean is each state can decide how they divvy up their electoral votes. There is nothing stopping California from awarding their votes based on the popular vote in California, like for example if the Democrat wins 60% of the popular vote they get 60% of the electoral votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

What I mean is each state can decide how they divvy up their electoral votes. There is nothing stopping California from awarding their votes based on the popular vote in California, like for example if the Democrat wins 60% of the popular vote they get 60% of the electoral votes.

---

Ultimately it would be better for representation if they did. Republicans would pick up about 1/3 of CA's electoral votes, Democrats would pick up about 2/5 of TX. Of course, if you go that far you might as well just get rid of the electoral system entirely...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

Of course, if you go that far you might as well just get rid of the electoral system entirely...

---

Not necessarily. A state like Wyoming with its small population represents only about .17% of the entire US' population, whereas their electoral votes make up almost .6% of all electoral votes because there is a minimum number of electoral votes each state can have. It's not much but smaller states have slightly more sway in the electoral college system compared to a straight up popular vote.

Plus I like the idea that each state can decide how to divvy up their electoral votes, all the federal government decides is how much each state gets by trying to be as fair as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Not necessarily. A state like Wyoming with its small population represents only about .17% of the entire US' population, whereas their electoral votes make up almost .6% of all electoral votes because there is a minimum number of electoral votes each state can have. It's not much but smaller states have slightly more sway in the electoral college system compared to a straight up popular vote.

---

That's what I'm getting at. Smaller states deserve fair representation, but that's what their congressmen are for, and they are all done via popular vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

That's what I'm getting at. Smaller states deserve fair representation, but that's what their congressmen are for, and they are all done via popular vote.

---

The Electoral college is a mixture though. Bigger states still get the bigger say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

I just wish back was able to understand things like this, but alas, he's a retard. Good on you for trying to help a retard, though.

---

If Trump won the popular vote and Hillary won the electoral vote Back would be praising the electoral college and how it’s working as intended and how the founders were such geniuses for coming up with it.

Same with time4idontrememberthatconversation and her dildo bitchboypk and the rest of the tards. And Hillary herself.