Red vs Gray

[task0778]

Democrats want the red areas to rule over the gray areas. But there's a reason why the founders didn't go along with that, and it's because all those gray states did not want to be excluded when it came down to voting for president or in Congress. Tyranny of the majority I believe it's called.

 

[Moonglow]

Why waste money on elections if the masses are not going to be able to elect a leader?

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Why waste money on elections if the masses are not going to be able to elect a leader?

Who said they aren't?

 

[anynameyouwish]

Democrats want the red areas to rule over the gray areas. But there's a reason why the founders didn't go along with that, and it's because all those gray states did not want to be excluded when it came down to voting for president or in Congress. Tyranny of the majority I believe it's called.

and you want RED STATES to rule over BLUE states?

why do so many conservatives keep wasting our time by accusing "their enemies" of "their own crimes"?


why do you think TERRITORY is MORE IMPORTANT than PEOPLE?

why do you think the MAJORITY of the people are LESS important than YOUR minority?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Democrats want the red areas to rule over the gray areas. But there's a reason why the founders didn't go along with that, and it's because all those gray states did not want to be excluded when it came down to voting for president or in Congress. Tyranny of the majority I believe it's called.

and you want RED STATES to rule over BLUE states?

why do so many conservatives keep wasting our time by accusing "their enemies" of "their own crimes"?


why do you think TERRITORY is MORE IMPORTANT than PEOPLE?

why do you think the MAJORITY of the people are LESS important than YOUR minority?

Why does your side murder innocent people in Chicago, NYC, Baltimore and other cities? Is it to lower your voting base so the Republicans can claim more power? Seems self destructive there, you fucking moron...

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Democrats want the red areas to rule over the gray areas. But there's a reason why the founders didn't go along with that, and it's because all those gray states did not want to be excluded when it came down to voting for president or in Congress. Tyranny of the majority I believe it's called.

Curious, why did you paint the blue areas RED ? Why not blue? Is there a hidden message?

 

[bendog]

The Blue states passed a law allowing Red states to not only expand Medicaid, when they had a greater propritonal % of citizens eligible for medicaid, but also increase the generosity of the fed dollar match for state dollars if a Red state expanded, and the red states responded by cutting the blue states tax exemptions for state and local taxes, and the red states bitch about being railroaded. LOL

From 1947 to 2016, we got by with the blue states pouring more tax dollars per capita into red states. In 2016, that became oppressive for the red states.

If Trump loses, I gotta tell ya, the brothers Emanuel have a plan to redress that "burden" on red states.

 

[bendog]

Democrats want the red areas to rule over the gray areas. But there's a reason why the founders didn't go along with that, and it's because all those gray states did not want to be excluded when it came down to voting for president or in Congress. Tyranny of the majority I believe it's called.

and you want RED STATES to rule over BLUE states?

why do so many conservatives keep wasting our time by accusing "their enemies" of "their own crimes"?


why do you think TERRITORY is MORE IMPORTANT than PEOPLE?

why do you think the MAJORITY of the people are LESS important than YOUR minority?

Why does your side murder innocent people in Chicago, NYC, Baltimore and other cities? Is it to lower your voting base so the Republicans can claim more power? Seems self destructive there, you fucking moron...

Why is it about "sides?" Are you being forced to live in Chi? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Why does your side murder innocent people in Chicago, NYC, Baltimore and other cities? Is it to lower your voting base so the Republicans can claim more power? Seems self destructive there, you fucking moron...

My guess?
Because lives don't matter to them...only power and seizing control of the country matters to them.

 

[task0778]

Why waste money on elections if the masses are not going to be able to elect a leader?

Since it's inception, this republic consists of larger and smaller states, in several ways: geographical area, wealth/resources, and population to name a few. The smaller states did not want to be run-over roughshod by the larger ones, and so they insisted on a few ways to reduce the chances of that happening. Which is why every state gets 2 and only 2 Senators, and it is also why we do not elect a president by a national popular vote. Cuz then the smaller states would be somewhat disenfranchized; it's not like the larger ones don't already have a great deal of economic power and political influence over the smaller ones. So the EC is something of a mechanism to maintain some sort of balance.

And to be frank, when I look at that map I see the red areas as the places where we have the most problems with mismanagement at the state and local levels. I don't want to give those people even more political clout to elect a president when they've pretty much fucked up their cities and states.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Democrats want the red areas to rule over the gray areas. But there's a reason why the founders didn't go along with that, and it's because all those gray states did not want to be excluded when it came down to voting for president or in Congress. Tyranny of the majority I believe it's called.

and you want RED STATES to rule over BLUE states?

why do so many conservatives keep wasting our time by accusing "their enemies" of "their own crimes"?


why do you think TERRITORY is MORE IMPORTANT than PEOPLE?

why do you think the MAJORITY of the people are LESS important than YOUR minority?

Why does your side murder innocent people in Chicago, NYC, Baltimore and other cities? Is it to lower your voting base so the Republicans can claim more power? Seems self destructive there, you fucking moron...

Why is it about "sides?" Are you being forced to live in Chi? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you.

Because your side doesnt say shit about the murders going on in those cities, yet if a legal protest in Charlotte gets taken over by illegal protestors who show up, the Lame Stream Media is hounding the president for a comment. Where is Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Al Sharpton, Bug Eyed AOC and why arent they condemning the actions going on in their cities? Because they love when people kill each other, gives them more power...Fuck you are almost as stupid as IM2.

 

[task0778]

Democrats want the red areas to rule over the gray areas. But there's a reason why the founders didn't go along with that, and it's because all those gray states did not want to be excluded when it came down to voting for president or in Congress. Tyranny of the majority I believe it's called.

Curious, why did you paint the blue areas RED ? Why not blue? Is there a hidden message?

Nah, no hidden message. that's the way the map was painted, I just inserted it from somewhere else. Here's the link

https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/50103/1002049221/original/red-areas-feature-a-total-population-greater-than-grey-areas-photo-u1?w=792&fm=pjpg&fit=crop&q=60

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Since it's inception, this republic consists of larger and smaller states, in several ways: geographical area, wealth/resources, and population to name a few. The smaller states did not want to be run-over roughshod by the larger ones, and so they insisted on a few ways to reduce the chances of that happening. Which is why every state gets 2 and only 2 Senators, and it is also why we do not elect a president by a national popular vote. Cuz then the smaller states would be somewhat disenfranchized; it's not like the larger ones don't already have a great deal of economic power and political influence over the smaller ones. So the EC is something of a mechanism to maintain some sort of balance.

And to be frank, when I look at that map I see the red areas as the places where we have the most problems with mismanagement at the state and local levels. I don't want to give those people even more political clout to elect a president when they've pretty much fucked up their cities and states.

Whoa!
WAY too much common sense and clarity for them. Heads will explode.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Democrats want the red areas to rule over the gray areas. But there's a reason why the founders didn't go along with that, and it's because all those gray states did not want to be excluded when it came down to voting for president or in Congress. Tyranny of the majority I believe it's called.

Ok...odd that they pained all the BLUE areas red.
Also odd how that little tiny area of densely clustered morons dictates how the country runs.

Image the country WITHOUT those people in those areas. wow.
Sadly, those cancerous areas are growing at a rapid pace.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Why waste money on elections if the masses are not going to be able to elect a leader?

Your participation in the presidential elections, determines whose Electoral College vote goes to. If your vote is among the majority in the state, the Electoral College votes go in your direction.

 

[OldLady]

Why waste money on elections if the masses are not going to be able to elect a leader?

Since it's inception, this republic consists of larger and smaller states, in several ways: geographical area, wealth/resources, and population to name a few. The smaller states did not want to be run-over roughshod by the larger ones, and so they insisted on a few ways to reduce the chances of that happening. Which is why every state gets 2 and only 2 Senators, and it is also why we do not elect a president by a national popular vote. Cuz then the smaller states would be somewhat disenfranchized; it's not like the larger ones don't already have a great deal of economic power and political influence over the smaller ones. So the EC is something of a mechanism to maintain some sort of balance.

And to be frank, when I look at that map I see the red areas as the places where we have the most problems with mismanagement at the state and local levels. I don't want to give those people even more political clout to elect a president when they've pretty much fucked up their cities and states.

task, please explain how the EC gives equal weight to smaller states when the number of EC votes each state gets is based on the number of reps to Congress, which in the House is based on population. If, like the senate, each state got the same number of electors, I could see this argument, but I'm not seeing how the EC equalizes anything, when California has 54 electors and Maine has 4.
This puzzles me every time this argument comes up.
How does the EC "balance" the votes?

 

[task0778]

Why waste money on elections if the masses are not going to be able to elect a leader?

Since it's inception, this republic consists of larger and smaller states, in several ways: geographical area, wealth/resources, and population to name a few. The smaller states did not want to be run-over roughshod by the larger ones, and so they insisted on a few ways to reduce the chances of that happening. Which is why every state gets 2 and only 2 Senators, and it is also why we do not elect a president by a national popular vote. Cuz then the smaller states would be somewhat disenfranchized; it's not like the larger ones don't already have a great deal of economic power and political influence over the smaller ones. So the EC is something of a mechanism to maintain some sort of balance.

And to be frank, when I look at that map I see the red areas as the places where we have the most problems with mismanagement at the state and local levels. I don't want to give those people even more political clout to elect a president when they've pretty much fucked up their cities and states.

task, please explain how the EC gives equal weight to smaller states when the number of EC votes each state gets is based on the number of reps to Congress, which in the House is based on population. If, like the senate, each state got the same number of electors, I could see this argument, but I'm not seeing how the EC equalizes anything, when California has 54 electors and Maine has 4.
This puzzles me every time this argument comes up.
How does the EC "balance" the votes?

First, I didn't say equal weight, I said the EC is a mechanism to maintain some sort of balance to reduce the chances of having the smaller states ignored in favor of the larger ones. Now, Reps in the House are indeed based on population but as I said, each state also gets 2 EC votes for their senators. So, a smaller, less populated state like Wyoming gets 3 EC votes rather than 1. So which is more balanced, California 54-3 or California 52-1? Those 2 extra votes for Wyoming don't mean a whole lot by themselves but added together with 30 other states could make a difference. If we had a purely popular national vote then we wouldn't see the candidates leaving the major cities, and probably their policies while in office could be influenced toward the urban vs rural citizens; those 2 EC votes by each state gives the smaller ones just a little bit more influence. And that is an attempt to provide more balance.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Why waste money on elections if the masses are not going to be able to elect a leader?

Since it's inception, this republic consists of larger and smaller states, in several ways: geographical area, wealth/resources, and population to name a few. The smaller states did not want to be run-over roughshod by the larger ones, and so they insisted on a few ways to reduce the chances of that happening. Which is why every state gets 2 and only 2 Senators, and it is also why we do not elect a president by a national popular vote. Cuz then the smaller states would be somewhat disenfranchized; it's not like the larger ones don't already have a great deal of economic power and political influence over the smaller ones. So the EC is something of a mechanism to maintain some sort of balance.

And to be frank, when I look at that map I see the red areas as the places where we have the most problems with mismanagement at the state and local levels. I don't want to give those people even more political clout to elect a president when they've pretty much fucked up their cities and states.

task, please explain how the EC gives equal weight to smaller states when the number of EC votes each state gets is based on the number of reps to Congress, which in the House is based on population. If, like the senate, each state got the same number of electors, I could see this argument, but I'm not seeing how the EC equalizes anything, when California has 54 electors and Maine has 4.
This puzzles me every time this argument comes up.
How does the EC "balance" the votes?

Math, the enemy of the Demoncraps.

 

[LuckyDuck]

OldLady, the only thing I can suggest is to go online and do the research. All I could do would be to write out a multi-paragraph statement parroting what is there online. That being said, here's why it remains important, rather than having a direct election for the President, as in the cases of the Congressmen/women and Senators.
As you know, sometimes the candidate with the popular vote loses, yet the winner of the Electoral College vote, gets in. The Electoral College voting seeks to maintain a political balance.
Think about it. If the Presidential election was solely determined by direct vote by the populace and all of the major cities were run by the Republicans, your vote as a Democrat would never amount to anything, for the major cities would always decide the course of the Presidential elections, over the lesser populated cities and rural areas.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Democrats want the red areas to rule over the gray areas. But there's a reason why the founders didn't go along with that, and it's because all those gray states did not want to be excluded when it came down to voting for president or in Congress. Tyranny of the majority I believe it's called.

and you want RED STATES to rule over BLUE states?

why do so many conservatives keep wasting our time by accusing "their enemies" of "their own crimes"?


why do you think TERRITORY is MORE IMPORTANT than PEOPLE?

why do you think the MAJORITY of the people are LESS important than YOUR minority?

We don't, we just want you to follow the construction...