And now he is calling for censorship



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Your reply. Lmao

 

Donald unhinged



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Problem is without electoral college, half of the country becomes irrelevant. The TEN most populous states hold 54% of the population. The bottom TWENTY SIX hold just 17%. There would be almost no point in trying to appeal to HALF of the country. Twenty one states hold less than 1% of the population each. I think it should be one state-one vote. We also need to do away states voting opposite of what their voters chose. we had SEVEN delegates that voted against the popular votes in protest in 2016. SEVEN delegates ignored the vote of the people and chose who HE/SHE wanted the entire state to vote for. It didnt change the outcome this time but it could. We had only had NINE delegates deviate since 1900. Then SEVEN in one election. Bush beat Gore by ONE electoral vote.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't see that as a problem. Why should location mean anything? Why shouldn't the majority decide the outcome of an election? It does for every other office. Why should the vote of 10 people living out in the sticks mean more than the 2 million living in the city? Who says those 10 people have the country's best interests in mind?

 

Apparently less populated states are over represented in the electoral college.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/how-fair-is-the-electoral-college/

 

Right!! Because the population is always going to grow faster in urban states than rural states. We can keep tweaking the college until its balanced every year or come up with a different solution. Just my opinion but i think one vote per state gives each state with their own priorities and perspectives equal voice. The popular candidate in each state would win one vote, the winning candidate would presumably still be the one with the national popular vote. It wouldn’t always but would generally. Just as now the national popular vote winners usually win the electoral. This only becomes an issue when it doesn’t. Whether someone lives in the sticks or downtown, they still deserve to represent their states interest not just their national interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Our founders did not believe the ordinary man could possess enough knowledge to vote intelligently on the presidency. Our capacity to access information and our ease of travel were unimaginable to them. They thought people physically isolated were particularly vulnerable to being easily duped. Well, people can be duped, but that's not because of physical isolation. An elite group of people casting votes for the rest of us is not the solution now, if indeed it ever was. It is an outrage.

Look at what the founders thought:

https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

No other democracy or republic sneers at their citizenry and uses an electoral college. Not one. Other countries have adopted the majority of our Constitution when they created their own Constitutions, but they always leave this article out in favor of the one-vote-one-person system. Over 700 amendments have been proposed to eliminate America's electoral college, far more than any other article in the Constitution.

https://www.fairvote.org/past_attempts_at_reform

The National Popular Vote Compact is a brilliant solution to our obnoxious electoral system. Yes, the general population may be bewildered by it when it first goes into effect, but eventually they will be pleased to know their own vote for the presidency finally counts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

It's too bad you missed knowing westwingnut. He taught us all about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact many, many pages ago and kept us up to date on which states were at which point in getting their bills for it passed.

 

For some odd reason I assumed Westwingnut was female.

 

I can see the logic in it and I get why people would want the popular vote to be the only vote. I just think that given the size and diversity of the US, it can be easy for urban voters to gloss over or not even understand the needs of more rural states. Every election, the candidates woo the big ticket states, then the swing states and if they have time or its close, some of the rest. Right now, a presidential candidate has to take most states into consideration to win. 21 states have less than 1% of the votes each. How many candidates are even going to give a thought to those states. As i posted above top 10 states carry 54% of the votes. Bottom ten states are 2% combined. Even in the tightest races, those ten states would be completely irrelevant. Im not saying ive got the right answers. Im just saying i dont think a straight up popular vote would be the right one either. I REALLY dont like the idea that delegates can vote contrary to a states popular vote.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Only if it works. A 20 billion dollar dam made of swiss cheese isnt saving anyone money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Walls don’t work, and it was proven to Trump
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...l-trump-tunnels-under-wall-acosta-pkg-vpx.cnn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Im sure everyone has seen this by now. Colbert points out the exact moment America became great again.
https://apple.news/A9FBqJosqSPCMQttmMGal9A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well that makes sense. Although it also makes sense for either gender.

 

The rural states have state legislatures to attend to their specific needs. What services in the Federal government do you think would be wished different for rural states? Everyone likes having the strongest military in the world. Everyone likes having a federally maintained national highway system. Everyone likes having the CDC to keep us safe from Ebola or whatever new horror reveals itself. Everyone hates taxation. I can't think of what the rural states want from the federal government that would be different from what I want. Some people enjoy the space program, some people think it's a waste of money--I don't know what colonizing Mars has to do with rural vs. urban concerns, though.

Policy-wise there would be different preferences from state to state because of how the majority of the citizenry would vote (anti-abortion, etc.), but that's just the tension between the Republican and Democratic parties, right? not rural needs versus urban needs?

I'm not understanding which Federal missions would favor or disfavor rural states. Can you think of any examples? I grew up in the rural part of California, up north, and it is heavily Republican at the moment. Probably was when I was a kid, too, but I wouldn't know as I didn't pay any attention. I don't know what California's rural north lacks from Federal services. Their local county governments will focus on their rural needs within this massive state. That's how I see it, anyway, but I'm willing to be educated.