Red vs Gray

[Wyatt earp]

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?

It doesn't, each state gets 2 for state rights and 1 for population of roughly 500000 people

 

[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?

Math, the enemy of the Demoncraps.

Oh, STFU. Obviously you don't know either.

 

[OldLady]

So, if I get this straight, it's more of a rural vs. cities thing. When you look at %, there are a few more Dems than Repubs, a lot of Independents, and polls don't break it down by area, either. But what you seem to be saying is that because cities tend to vote Democrat, and since cities have the most people, if it were straight majority vote, the CITIES' perspective would be emphasized over the rural perspective.

Is that right?

I'm still chewing it over.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

 

[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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Yeah. But then there's district jerrymandering, to improve the voting direction in favor of a candidate.

 

[task0778]

So, if I get this straight, it's more of a rural vs. cities thing. When you look at %, there are a few more Dems than Repubs, a lot of Independents, and polls don't break it down by area, either. But what you seem to be saying is that because cities tend to vote Democrat, and since cities have the most people, if it were straight majority vote, the CITIES' perspective would be emphasized over the rural perspective.

Is that right?

I'm still chewing it over.

"if it were straight majority vote, the CITIES' perspective would be emphasized over the rural perspective."

Hard to see how it would be otherwise. Who would care as much for the small towns across America if we went to a national popular vote? Seems to me the major cities and most populous states already have an advantage cuz they already control much of the nation's financial, cultural, communication, and governmental centers. I am told Trump won the popular vote in 49 of the 50 states, but lost big in California. Do we want California basically deciding who our next president will be?

PS: Maine and Nebraska.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Pogo and I argued over this for years he moved from a blue city to a rural state his choice, like I did the same thing now my vote counts

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Sounds like the argument of a loser who knows they will lose.
Both parties have an equal chance to gain popular support. It just seems that one is more interested in doing so than the other.

Stop crying and get busy. 75% of Americans support BLM and Pence can't even say the words. Sad.

Losers gonna lose.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Yeah. But then there's district jerrymandering, to improve the voting direction in favor of a candidate.

Nothing's perfect. But it would be more fair, don't you agree?

 

[OldLady]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Pogo and I argued over this for years he moved from a blue city to a rural state his choice, like I did the same thing now my vote counts

Where IS Pogo? I haven't seen him in ages.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Pogo and I argued over this for years he moved from a blue city to a rural state his choice, like I did the same thing now my vote counts

Let's take a for instance: You live in a rural state that is consistently 60% conservative. When ALL the electoral votes of that state go to the 60% who vote conservative, that leaves the 40% who are liberal with basically no vote. It is actually exactly the same outcome as if there was a straight majority vote.

But I can see the rural v. urban argument, a little anyway.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Pogo and I argued over this for years he moved from a blue city to a rural state his choice, like I did the same thing now my vote counts

Where IS Pogo? I haven't seen him in ages.

Yeah, where is he?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Pogo and I argued over this for years he moved from a blue city to a rural state his choice, like I did the same thing now my vote counts

Let's take a for instance: You live in a rural state that is consistently 60% conservative. When ALL the electoral votes of that state go to the 60% who vote conservative, that leaves the 40% who are liberal with basically no vote. It is actually exactly the same outcome as if there was a straight majority vote.

But I can see the rural v. urban argument, a little anyway.

Urban folks are way to indoctrinated

 

[OldLady]

So, if I get this straight, it's more of a rural vs. cities thing. When you look at %, there are a few more Dems than Repubs, a lot of Independents, and polls don't break it down by area, either. But what you seem to be saying is that because cities tend to vote Democrat, and since cities have the most people, if it were straight majority vote, the CITIES' perspective would be emphasized over the rural perspective.

Is that right?

I'm still chewing it over.

"if it were straight majority vote, the CITIES' perspective would be emphasized over the rural perspective."

Hard to see how it would be otherwise. Who would care as much for the small towns across America if we went to a national popular vote? Seems to me the major cities and most populous states already have an advantage cuz they already control much of the nation's financial, cultural, communication, and governmental centers. I am told Trump won the popular vote in 49 of the 50 states, but lost big in California. Do we want California basically deciding who our next president will be?

PS: Maine and Nebraska.

Hillary won the popular vote in Maine. So it wasn't 49. I'd check that figure again.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Pogo and I argued over this for years he moved from a blue city to a rural state his choice, like I did the same thing now my vote counts

Let's take a for instance: You live in a rural state that is consistently 60% conservative. When ALL the electoral votes of that state go to the 60% who vote conservative, that leaves the 40% who are liberal with basically no vote. It is actually exactly the same outcome as if there was a straight majority vote.

But I can see the rural v. urban argument, a little anyway.

Urban folks are way to indoctrinated

Stereotype. Fail.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Pogo and I argued over this for years he moved from a blue city to a rural state his choice, like I did the same thing now my vote counts

Let's take a for instance: You live in a rural state that is consistently 60% conservative. When ALL the electoral votes of that state go to the 60% who vote conservative, that leaves the 40% who are liberal with basically no vote. It is actually exactly the same outcome as if there was a straight majority vote.

But I can see the rural v. urban argument, a little anyway.

Urban folks are way to indoctrinated

Stereotype. Fail.

No...you have rich urban folks who doesn't care if a Snickers bar (for example) cost 20 cents more, then you have poor urban people on food stamps that doesn't care either.


No middle class.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Pogo and I argued over this for years he moved from a blue city to a rural state his choice, like I did the same thing now my vote counts

Let's take a for instance: You live in a rural state that is consistently 60% conservative. When ALL the electoral votes of that state go to the 60% who vote conservative, that leaves the 40% who are liberal with basically no vote. It is actually exactly the same outcome as if there was a straight majority vote.

But I can see the rural v. urban argument, a little anyway.

Urban folks are way to indoctrinated

Stereotype. Fail.

No...you have rich urban folks who doesn't care if a Snickers bar (for example) cost 20 cents more, then you have poor urban people on food stamps that doesn't care either.


No middle class.

I damn well have noticed and I am boycotting them.

 

[task0778]

So, if I get this straight, it's more of a rural vs. cities thing. When you look at %, there are a few more Dems than Repubs, a lot of Independents, and polls don't break it down by area, either. But what you seem to be saying is that because cities tend to vote Democrat, and since cities have the most people, if it were straight majority vote, the CITIES' perspective would be emphasized over the rural perspective.

Is that right?

I'm still chewing it over.

"if it were straight majority vote, the CITIES' perspective would be emphasized over the rural perspective."

Hard to see how it would be otherwise. Who would care as much for the small towns across America if we went to a national popular vote? Seems to me the major cities and most populous states already have an advantage cuz they already control much of the nation's financial, cultural, communication, and governmental centers. I am told Trump won the popular vote in 49 of the 50 states, but lost big in California. Do we want California basically deciding who our next president will be?

PS: Maine and Nebraska.

Hillary won the popular vote in Maine. So it wasn't 49. I'd check that figure again.

Maybe I said it wrong, I believe Hillary won the overall popular vote by about 2.9 million votes, but she won California by just under 4.3 million. Ergo, Trump must've won the aggregate popular vote in the other 49 states, no? That's what I meant, with that kind of margin it's not hard to see how California could decide most if not presidential elections if we went to a national popular vote for president. Throw in the next 10 most populous states, most of which are blue, and it wouldn't matter what the rest of them did. Look at the map in the OP, I just do not want those small red areas deciding who the next president will be for the foreseeable future. No matter who they vote for, although it's kinda obvious these days.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Pogo always said he didn't even bother to vote because he lives in a real red state and there was no sense. THAT sucks, too. I think there are some drawbacks to this system, too. Although it would be improved if all states did what Maine does, and give electors to each DISTRICT. We even went purple last time. The two "senator" votes went to the candidate with the most votes.

I think there's one other state that does that. South Dakota? I'm just guessing.

Pogo and I argued over this for years he moved from a blue city to a rural state his choice, like I did the same thing now my vote counts

Let's take a for instance: You live in a rural state that is consistently 60% conservative. When ALL the electoral votes of that state go to the 60% who vote conservative, that leaves the 40% who are liberal with basically no vote. It is actually exactly the same outcome as if there was a straight majority vote.

But I can see the rural v. urban argument, a little anyway.

Urban folks are way to indoctrinated

Stereotype. Fail.

No...you have rich urban folks who doesn't care if a Snickers bar (for example) cost 20 cents more, then you have poor urban people on food stamps that doesn't care either.


No middle class.

I damn well have noticed and I am boycotting them.

Using Chicago as an example, t
More taxes on a Snickers bar then a Hersey bar plain (taxing Des nuts)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Hillary won the popular vote in Maine. So it wasn't 49. I'd check that figure again.

Maine is one of two states that divides its Electoral votes up, rather than giving them all to the one candidate that wins the whole state, It gives two of its votes (corresponding to its two Senators) to whichever candidate wins the whole state, and the remaining two votes, by Congressional district, to the winner in each district. In 2016, of Maine's two Congressional Districts, Trump won one of them, winning one of Maine's four Electoral votes.

So, Clinton won ¾ of Maine, and Trump won ¼ of Maine.

2016 United States presidential election in Maine - Wikipedia