Aoc says electoral college racist

#151
#151
McDad said:
Understood. But the state has a right to self determination as long as their right doesn't violate the right of the individual.
Click to expand...
Oh no I agree, at least with regards to states determining how to direct their delegates to vote based on their internal election results. But to your point on an individual’s right, there isn’t anything wrong prop delegates in a state constitutionally and a couple of states do that now. However to literally void a state’s own election results and defer to large population centers I’d submit does indeed violate the state’s citizens rights. And if it ever goes into effect, which I doubt it will, I guess there will be a legal challenge along those lines. Prop delegates, perfectly within a state’s rights today. Ceding a state’s vote, don’t see how that is constitutional
 
#152
#152
Weezer said:
Yes, white people should just give up their rights and allow our voices to be silenced. Apparently that's what equality really means. Silly me thought it was putting aside race and every person having equal rights under the Constitution, but no, we white people have it too good and should feel guilt and shame over things our ancestors might have done.
Click to expand...
Just catching up a bit on this thread and forming an opinion about how the Libs would be so happy to see states like Idaho, Montana, Nebraska and Wyoming lose power by eliminating the EC... and what a coincidence that these are among the “whitest” states!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#153
#153
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#154
#154
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#155
#155
MG1968 said:
You’re going to have to explain how the EC is anti-democratic. It’s still tied to the popular vote, but only at the state level. If a candidate wins more states, theoretically he/she wins the presidency.
Click to expand...

That's not a very good representation of a democratic election. Ideally, the allotted EC votes would be tied to the number of votes each candidate got - but a winner take all is what most states have. Even then, the EC delegates can in theory do whatever the fuq they want to do, irrespective of how the states population votes. The superdelegates is whole different chapter of the shtshow. Tying a states alloted EC vote count to a states popular vote would ensure that everyone's vote carries some weight. California for example has 55 electoral college votes, 38% of the states popular vote went to Trump - that would have equated to 21 EC votes, which is more EC than 47 other States (only florida, texas and New York have more). It's disenfranchising and makes it completely worthless for the States 6mm registered republicans to even show up and pull a lever.
 
#159
#159
hndog609 said:
What should be easier to understand is it exactly, 100% was never intended to work that way and for a reason.
Click to expand...

Right, it was intended to prevent unqualified populist demagogues from usurping the Constitution through agenda driven or partisan tomfuqery. I'd wager there are a number on the right who would sneer at that assertion given Obama's election twice, and a few on the left that would do likewise given the current administration.

Given that, it seems to me what you see depends on where you sit. Right now' it's the left's turn do sit in the barrel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hndog609 and 37L1
#162
#162
evillawyer said:
Or, if we get states equaling or exceeding 270 electoral college votes to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the popular election, the EC becomes, effectively, a nullity without a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.

29 states and Washington DC require that presidential electors cast their vote for the presidential candidate for the party they were selected to represent.
 
#165
#165
Septic said:
Right, it was intended to prevent unqualified populist demagogues from usurping the Constitution through agenda driven or partisan tomfuqery. I'd wager there are a number on the right who would sneer at that assertion given Obama's election twice, and a few on the left that would do likewise given the current administration.

Given that, it seems to me what you see depends on where you sit. Right now' it's the left's turn do sit in the barrel.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how often "fair" (and I'm meaning far beyond just this topic) changes definition by who is benefiting the most at any given time.
 
#167
#167
jp1 said:
Wouldn't the popular vote be considered more racist?
Click to expand...

She didn't call it "racist" in the first place.

Semantics aside, if it does indeed create racial inequality, it's because the small population states that are more heterogeneously white are overrepresented in the EC. You get your population + 2, so a big state has less representation per capita than a small state. Wyoming gets one ECV for every 192k people. CA gets one ECV for every 730k people.

So to answer your question, no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and tvolsfan
#169
#169
Rifleman said:
We can also agree that the words "socialism" and "political correctness" have lost all meaning, then?
Click to expand...
Yes, to some extent. Also I didn't say "lost all meaning". I asked "What does it mean anymore?" My intent was to imply that the term gets diluted when it is applied ubiquitously/inappropriately. Racist/racism is used that way much more than your two examples, but my answer is still "yes, to some extent."
 
#171
#171
n_huffhines said:
She didn't call it "racist" in the first place.

Semantics aside, if it does indeed create racial inequality, it's because the small population states that are more heterogeneously white are overrepresented in the EC. You get your population + 2, so a big state has less representation per capita than a small state. Wyoming gets one ECV for every 192k people. CA gets one ECV for every 730k people.

So to answer your question, no.
Click to expand...

I understand your reasoning and it does make sense, but aren't you discounting just sheer numbers by "race" by a popular vote? I would tend to think so.
 
#172
#172
n_huffhines said:
She didn't call it "racist" in the first place.

Semantics aside, if it does indeed create racial inequality, it's because the small population states that are more heterogeneously white are overrepresented in the EC. You get your population + 2, so a big state has less representation per capita than a small state. Wyoming gets one ECV for every 192k people. CA gets one ECV for every 730k people.

So to answer your question, no.
Click to expand...

But they supposedly aren’t counting all the illegals in Cali.
 
#174
#174
jp1 said:
I understand your reasoning and it does make sense, but aren't you discounting just sheer numbers by "race" by a popular vote? I would tend to think so.
Click to expand...

This would be valid thought if all whites were racist, but nobody thinks that. What does seem to be true is that areas that are more white are less inclined to care about racial justice. For example, they don't care if the war on drugs is destroying inner-city America. It's not their problem. So while blacks were cursing Ronald Reagan's name, white middle America couldn't have cared less.

Anecdotally, I saw with my own eyes that heterogeneously white places are far more likely to be racist. I moved from east TN to southern Utah, and I was blown away by the stuff people would say. You would sometimes hear kids saying openly racist stuff in the classroom, and I'm not talking 50 years ago, I was class of 2000. The idea that racism exists is more of a problem in TN because the races have to live together, but that's not the case in small town Utah, where people actually happen to be more racist.
 
#175
#175
Arguments like this expose the fundamental difference between our FFs and today's partisans: that yes, the FFs were flawed people with unfathomable differences and vast contempt for each other and STILL they came together and compromised to move the country into being.

Today's left and right are involved in a symbiotic relationship wherein they pretend to hate each other (see James Carville and wife), call each other's very existence anathema to the very fabric of the Republic, and all so they can avoid ever having to compromise.

Why? Because when you actually do something you have to be accountable for it on election day, and because to compromise with the other side would let their angry label-hurling minions in on the secret that this is all for show.

Pelosi and McConnell top of their parties not because of their ideas, or their ability to inspire action, or basic competence. They are simply the best fund-raisers, and that is all that matters at this point when 90% of the elected official's time is begging people more successful than them for a small portion of their money.

EC vs. popular vote is really moot at this point as long as the same few corporations and interest groups buy and sell your government like cows on a auction block every other year.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top