2020 Primaries

#5,002
#5,002
luthervol said:
You asked if small states were less important.
Are you now asking if small states are less important in their voting voice?
Of course they are.
They are under the EC. All states do not get the same number of EC votes, that would give them equal importance.
Not even the FF would go that far. They knew that population had to be a key component.
Click to expand...

You do know some of those "small" states are a whole lot bigger than some of the "big" states ... they just don't pack 'em in like NY for example. Sometimes they trade people for land to grow what people in NY eat ... chew on that a little bit. If the "little" states revolted and cut off things like food, oil, and other necessities where the "big" states be? Belittle the "little" states all you want, but they are more important than you wish to accept. One size government controlled by "big" states isn't going to make your life better.
 
#5,003
#5,003
37L1 said:
Do you think that the Electoral College should be done away with through a Constitutional Amendment process?
Click to expand...

Done away with, no. Modified to distribute the States population determined delegates proportional to the electorates votes (like Maine & Nebraska), yes.

I'd also dump the ability for delegates to vote how they wanted and to get rid of superdelegates.

The process has boiled down to a few swing states determining the election and even then the swing states have a significant number of minority party voters whose will is worthless due to a winner take all system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#5,004
#5,004
Septic said:
Done away with, no. Modified to distribute the States population determined delegates proportional to the electorates votes (like Nebraska), yes.

I'd also dump the ability for delegates to vote how they wanted and to get rid of superdelegates.

The process has boiled down to a few swing states determining the election and even then the swing states have a significant number of minority party voters whose will is worthless due to a winner take all system.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#5,005
#5,005
Septic said:
Done away with, no. Modified to distribute the States population determined delegates proportional to the electorates votes (like Nebraska), yes.

I'd also dump the ability for delegates to vote how they wanted and to get rid of superdelegates.

The process has boiled down to a few swing states determining the election and even then the swing states have a significant number of minority party voters whose will is worthless due to a winner take all system.
Click to expand...
Superdelegates are a machination of the Democratic party to protect their "elites"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zues1 and AM64
#5,008
#5,008
OHvol40 said:
Breaking America down into “urban” and “rural” issues is a binary view that doesn’t represent America as a whole. There’s crossover in interests, beliefs, and pints of view everywhere. It would be like me saying candidates running on issues for the educated vs uneducated. There are trends, sure, but there is also a lot of crossover.
Click to expand...
True. There is crossover. What's your point?
 
#5,011
#5,011
Septic said:
Done away with, no. Modified to distribute the States population determined delegates proportional to the electorates votes (like Maine & Nebraska), yes.

I'd also dump the ability for delegates to vote how they wanted and to get rid of superdelegates.

The process has boiled down to a few swing states determining the election and even then the swing states have a significant number of minority party voters whose will is worthless due to a winner take all system.
Click to expand...
But there is a plus to the swing states. They are like political flypaper, they get an inordinate amount of candidate attention, through ads, rallys, speeches, etc. It spares the rest of us from that crap.
 
#5,012
#5,012
Sea Ray said:
True. There is crossover. What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is if we’re voting by popular vote then candidates would have to run on issues that matter to Americans as a whole, not just “Urban” or “Rural” issues, because those don’t really exist. Unless you’re using “urban” as code for liberal and “rural” as code for conservative. Are you?
 
#5,013
#5,013
37L1 said:
But there is a plus to the swing states. They are like political flypaper, they get an inordinate amount of candidate attention, through ads, rallys, speeches, etc. It spares the rest of us from that crap.
Click to expand...

I live in Florida, it must be nice to not have to deal with it.
 
#5,016
#5,016
OHvol40 said:
My point is if we’re voting by popular vote then candidates would have to run on issues that matter to Americans as a whole, not just “Urban” or “Rural” issues, because those don’t really exist. Unless you’re using “urban” as code for liberal and “rural” as code for conservative. Are you?
Click to expand...
If you're going popular vote, you'd only have to run on urban issues. I disagree on there being a lot of crossover. The urban/rural divide is one of the most stark in American society. There are of course exceptions - I personally am a conservative/libertarian living right in the middle of a city, but they are exceptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, AM64 and tbwhhs
#5,017
#5,017
OHvol40 said:
My point is if we’re voting by popular vote then candidates would have to run on issues that matter to Americans as a whole, not just “Urban” or “Rural” issues, because those don’t really exist. Unless you’re using “urban” as code for liberal and “rural” as code for conservative. Are you?
Click to expand...

It's way harder to pander and entrench yourself into identity politics if all the states voters and delegates are on the menu.
 
#5,018
#5,018
OHvol40 said:
So why should the scope of an election change the method? Either popular voting is fair or it’s not. You can’t have it both ways.
Click to expand...
You want to put the onus for me to defend the fairness of the EC? That's not how it works. I'm not trying to convince you of jack caca. I'm fine the way it is, don't feel the need to change it, nor change your mind. Nor did I bring some half-baked concept of "fair" to the conversation without the ability to found the concept I'm seeking to argue.

As I've alluded to, I defend the EC from a practical standpoint (it holds the federated nation together by representing states' perceived self interests) while not being unfair, in that a small segment of geographic interests aren't dictating national representation.

But again... You're here to change our mind, remember? This is the big stage you asked for. The spotlight is on you. Don't ____ the bed now that you have your chance.

Your argument is that the EC should be changed because it isn't "fair". That's your argument; not mine. You wanted to debate "fair". Go for it.

Again... I would recommend grounding justice in an objective, shared standard. Otherwise, we'll just need to go with the shared standard we currently have--the Constitution. What does it say again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Sea Ray and 37L1
#5,023
#5,023
Septic said:
It's way harder to pander and entrench yourself into identity politics if all the states voters and delegates are on the menu.
Click to expand...

Right. It should be hard to become president. Passing that test should mean you’re inclusive rather than exclusive... but in 2020 it pays to be latter and then incite fear in your selected population to get them to turn out.
 
#5,024
#5,024
AM64 said:
You do know some of those "small" states are a whole lot bigger than some of the "big" states ... they just don't pack 'em in like NY for example. Sometimes they trade people for land to grow what people in NY eat ... chew on that a little bit. If the "little" states revolted and cut off things like food, oil, and other necessities where the "big" states be? Belittle the "little" states all you want, but they are more important than you wish to accept. One size government controlled by "big" states isn't going to make your life better.
Click to expand...
When did I ever in my life belittle' little' states? You guys have such an inferiority complex and that's on you.
No one in a "big" state has any desire to harm the livelihood of a farmer or rancher or manufacturer. I think people are smart enough to realize that their food doesn't magically fall out of the sky. Just as the farmer is wise enough to know that his I-phone, laptop, apps, and software weren't designed on a farm in Idaho.
 
#5,025
#5,025
OHvol40 said:
My point is if we’re voting by popular vote then candidates would have to run on issues that matter to Americans as a whole, not just “Urban” or “Rural” issues, because those don’t really exist. Unless you’re using “urban” as code for liberal and “rural” as code for conservative. Are you?
Click to expand...
Whereas there is overlap there are also competing issues. Urban folks tend to want more gun control and rural folks want less. Urban folks tend to want abortion rights and the rural tend towards religion and pro life. Urban folks want more gov't, rural want less. If you do away with the EC it'd behoove a candidate to support the urban side of these issues.

I doubt I'll change your mind. But to get back to my earlier point, I don't have to 'cause I support leaving it as it is. You're the one who has work in front of you. You'll need to convince 2/3s of America
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top