The MAJOR difference between Medicare and Private Insurance...

[colfax_m]

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

Slept through your classes huh?

I find it ironic that the intent of the EC was to prevent populist demagogues like Trump from getting elected.

Yet that's not the aspect of the EC that dems are complaining about. If we want that part of the EC to work, we actually need to strengthen it to ensure elector independence. What dems are upset about is the fact that the distribution of electoral votes (and representation in the Senate) is skewed to compensate less populous states. They want to be able to ignore the rednecks.

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation. If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

No, you want Progs to be over represented.

How do you figure that?

 

[colfax_m]

I find it ironic that the intent of the EC was to prevent populist demagogues like Trump from getting elected.

Yet that's not the aspect of the EC that dems are complaining about. If we want that part of the EC to work, we actually need to strengthen it to ensure elector independence. What dems are upset about is the fact that the distribution of electoral votes (and representation in the Senate) is skewed to compensate less populous states. They want to be able to ignore the rednecks.

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation. If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

The purpose is and remains the same. It prevents one state (or collection of states) from dominating the electoral process. You know that tyranny of the masses thing!

Why should the very few metro areas of of the US get to choose who is president?

A collection of states already dominate the process. If you think that’s the goal, then it’s failing miserably.

The last election definitively proved otherwise. I suggest you learn from history.

How do you figure? Almost all elections are decided by a handful of swing states. Florida. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. Ohio. There’s basically no campaigning anywhere else.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yet that's not the aspect of the EC that dems are complaining about. If we want that part of the EC to work, we actually need to strengthen it to ensure elector independence. What dems are upset about is the fact that the distribution of electoral votes (and representation in the Senate) is skewed to compensate less populous states. They want to be able to ignore the rednecks.

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation. If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

The purpose is and remains the same. It prevents one state (or collection of states) from dominating the electoral process. You know that tyranny of the masses thing!

Why should the very few metro areas of of the US get to choose who is president?

A collection of states already dominate the process. If you think that’s the goal, then it’s failing miserably.

The last election definitively proved otherwise. I suggest you learn from history.

How do you figure? Almost all elections are decided by a handful of swing states. Florida. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. Ohio. There’s basically no campaigning anywhere else.

If you mean why Democrats don't campaign anywhere else, it is because they can't win anyway. Why waste the effort. The states made themselves inhospitable to liberalism, not because of the Electoral College.

 

[colfax_m]

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation. If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

The purpose is and remains the same. It prevents one state (or collection of states) from dominating the electoral process. You know that tyranny of the masses thing!

Why should the very few metro areas of of the US get to choose who is president?

A collection of states already dominate the process. If you think that’s the goal, then it’s failing miserably.

The last election definitively proved otherwise. I suggest you learn from history.

How do you figure? Almost all elections are decided by a handful of swing states. Florida. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. Ohio. There’s basically no campaigning anywhere else.

If you mean why Democrats don't campaign anywhere else, it is because they can't win anyway. Why waste the effort. The states made themselves inhospitable to liberalism, not because of the Electoral College.

Good lord man, is everything just Dems bad, reps good to you? Republicans don’t campaign in deep blue states either. Why would they? It’s a waste of time.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The purpose is and remains the same. It prevents one state (or collection of states) from dominating the electoral process. You know that tyranny of the masses thing!

Why should the very few metro areas of of the US get to choose who is president?

A collection of states already dominate the process. If you think that’s the goal, then it’s failing miserably.

The last election definitively proved otherwise. I suggest you learn from history.

How do you figure? Almost all elections are decided by a handful of swing states. Florida. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. Ohio. There’s basically no campaigning anywhere else.

If you mean why Democrats don't campaign anywhere else, it is because they can't win anyway. Why waste the effort. The states made themselves inhospitable to liberalism, not because of the Electoral College.

Good lord man, is everything just Dems bad, reps good to you? Republicans don’t campaign in deep blue states either. Why would they? It’s a waste of time.

But they do! That is where you are wrong.

If Hillary had campaigned in PA, MI, and WI, we would not likely be having this conversation.

 

[colfax_m]

A collection of states already dominate the process. If you think that’s the goal, then it’s failing miserably.

The last election definitively proved otherwise. I suggest you learn from history.

How do you figure? Almost all elections are decided by a handful of swing states. Florida. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. Ohio. There’s basically no campaigning anywhere else.

If you mean why Democrats don't campaign anywhere else, it is because they can't win anyway. Why waste the effort. The states made themselves inhospitable to liberalism, not because of the Electoral College.

Good lord man, is everything just Dems bad, reps good to you? Republicans don’t campaign in deep blue states either. Why would they? It’s a waste of time.

But they do! That is where you are wrong.

If Hillary had campaigned in PA, MI, and WI, we would not likely be having this conversation.

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The last election definitively proved otherwise. I suggest you learn from history.

How do you figure? Almost all elections are decided by a handful of swing states. Florida. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. Ohio. There’s basically no campaigning anywhere else.

If you mean why Democrats don't campaign anywhere else, it is because they can't win anyway. Why waste the effort. The states made themselves inhospitable to liberalism, not because of the Electoral College.

Good lord man, is everything just Dems bad, reps good to you? Republicans don’t campaign in deep blue states either. Why would they? It’s a waste of time.

But they do! That is where you are wrong.

If Hillary had campaigned in PA, MI, and WI, we would not likely be having this conversation.

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

 

[colfax_m]

How do you figure? Almost all elections are decided by a handful of swing states. Florida. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. Ohio. There’s basically no campaigning anywhere else.

If you mean why Democrats don't campaign anywhere else, it is because they can't win anyway. Why waste the effort. The states made themselves inhospitable to liberalism, not because of the Electoral College.

Good lord man, is everything just Dems bad, reps good to you? Republicans don’t campaign in deep blue states either. Why would they? It’s a waste of time.

But they do! That is where you are wrong.

If Hillary had campaigned in PA, MI, and WI, we would not likely be having this conversation.

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If you mean why Democrats don't campaign anywhere else, it is because they can't win anyway. Why waste the effort. The states made themselves inhospitable to liberalism, not because of the Electoral College.

Good lord man, is everything just Dems bad, reps good to you? Republicans don’t campaign in deep blue states either. Why would they? It’s a waste of time.

But they do! That is where you are wrong.

If Hillary had campaigned in PA, MI, and WI, we would not likely be having this conversation.

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

 

[colfax_m]

Good lord man, is everything just Dems bad, reps good to you? Republicans don’t campaign in deep blue states either. Why would they? It’s a waste of time.

But they do! That is where you are wrong.

If Hillary had campaigned in PA, MI, and WI, we would not likely be having this conversation.

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

 

[Redfish]

without the EC, four areas would pick our presidents-----------LA county, NYC, Houston, and Miami/Dade. the rest of the country would have zero input.

and by the way, Hillary lost the EC. and yes, she won the PV in Cal and NYC. but she still lost and will never sit in the oval office. The election of 2016 saved the USA.

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Just remember, those four places may not always be left wing strongholds, or they may lose their number advantage since people are leaving those high tax places in droves.

the founders got it right when they set up the EC, and it had nothing to do with slavery. your obsession with a delusion about early
America is another sign of minimal intelligence.

Of course it did.

Because there won’t always be “distinguished characters” with national recognition who could win a majority of votes, “the people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed.” But this will not be Virginia, “since her slaves will have no suffrage.” ~ Hugh Williamson of North Carolina
​

Not a single reason for the EC exists today...except to keep conservative white men in power. That part still holds true...

It depends on which facet of the "EC" you're talking about. The distribution of electoral votes that compensates less populous states is still perfectly valid. It punishes politicians and parties who think they can ignore the "flyover states". I didn't like the outcome, but the EC worked as intended in 2016. Democrats decided they could just focus on dense population centers and ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. I still don't think they've absorbed this lesson yet. They're still in denial.

Bullshit. The "flyover" states have voters and when every single vote counts, every single voter matters. As it is now, only a half dozen States matter. Democrats in Birmingham want their votes to count as much as Republicans in Fresno.

The EC has never worked the way it was intended...except to keep white men in power.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

Here’s Every Defense of the Electoral College — and Why They’re All Wrong

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas. Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.
​

you are such a partisan brainwashed idiot. If we didn't have the EC the candidates would ONLY campaign in 4 places---------LA county, NYC, Houston metro, and Miami/Dade.

2016 campaigning proves your claim to be BS. Trump campaigned in Mich, Minn, NH, Montana, and did not visit Cal.

they campaigned in ohio, fla, NC, and Penn because they are swing states. It continues to amaze me how ignorant you are.

 

[Redfish]

But they do! That is where you are wrong.

If Hillary had campaigned in PA, MI, and WI, we would not likely be having this conversation.

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

without the EC they would pander to LA, NY, Miami and Houston. WTF difference would it make? Politicians pander, thats how it works.

 

[Redfish]

without the EC, four areas would pick our presidents-----------LA county, NYC, Houston, and Miami/Dade. the rest of the country would have zero input.

and by the way, Hillary lost the EC. and yes, she won the PV in Cal and NYC. but she still lost and will never sit in the oval office. The election of 2016 saved the USA.

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Did you flunk government before joining the Puddle Pilots?

What does slavery have to do with the electoral college?

You're not a history teacher, obviously.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

The connection to the 3/5ths compromise ended with a constitutional amendment. That is a weak and archaic relationship you are working in that is unrelated to modern time.

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

When Trump wins the PV in November, all of the dem cries to eliminate the EC will go silent----------------watch.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

without the EC they would pander to LA, NY, Miami and Houston. WTF difference would it make? Politicians pander, thats how it works.

They’d campaign to as many people in as many places as they could. A voter in Tennessee carries no more weight than a voter in any of the cities you mentioned. The difference is that a voter’s worth is not determined by their location. Every vote counts the same.

 

[dblack]

Sure buddy. Trump how many campaign rallies in Washington?

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

without the EC they would pander to LA, NY, Miami and Houston. WTF difference would it make? Politicians pander, thats how it works.

The difference would be that urban concerns would get all the attention and the rural voters would be disregarded entirely. The purpose of the EC power imbalance isn't to prevent "battleground" states. It's to prevent leaders from catering to the most populous states at the expense of the rest. It was introduced as a way to entice smaller, rural states to join a union with larger, more urban states. It's still necessary for that reason.

Democrats need to stop railing against the Constitution and focus on winning back the voters they've lost. They need to actually listen to what these voters want (hint: it's not "free shit").

 

[Redfish]

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

without the EC they would pander to LA, NY, Miami and Houston. WTF difference would it make? Politicians pander, thats how it works.

They’d campaign to as many people in as many places as they could. A voter in Tennessee carries no more weight than a voter in any of the cities you mentioned. The difference is that a voter’s worth is not determined by their location. Every vote counts the same.

Yes, but they would campaign where there are the most voters. Would you go to Cheyenne Wyoming or NYC if you were looking to maximize your PV?

 

[colfax_m]

He held two in 2016. You were saying?

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

without the EC they would pander to LA, NY, Miami and Houston. WTF difference would it make? Politicians pander, thats how it works.

The difference would be that urban concerns would get all the attention and the rural voters would be disregarded entirely. The purpose of the EC power imbalance isn't to prevent "battleground" states. It's to prevent leaders from catering to the most populous states at the expense of the rest. It was introduced as a way to entice smaller, rural states to join a union with larger, more urban states. It's still necessary for that reason.

Democrats need to stop railing against the Constitution and focus on winning back the voters they've lost. They need to actually listen to what these voters want (hint: it's not "free shit").

Without the EC, no one is catering towards any state, large or small. States are no longer part of the equation. They only have to cater to people. To voters.

I don’t see how the EC is still necessary to entice smaller states to join the union. They’re not going anywhere.

 

[colfax_m]

Two! Out of over 300. He spent one day there. You’re proving my point.

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

without the EC they would pander to LA, NY, Miami and Houston. WTF difference would it make? Politicians pander, thats how it works.

They’d campaign to as many people in as many places as they could. A voter in Tennessee carries no more weight than a voter in any of the cities you mentioned. The difference is that a voter’s worth is not determined by their location. Every vote counts the same.

Yes, but they would campaign where there are the most voters. Would you go to Cheyenne Wyoming or NYC if you were looking to maximize your PV?

God forbid they campaign where people actually live.

Are there voters in Cheyenne? Then yes. How many presidential candidates campaign in Cheyenne now? Zero.

 

[dblack]

I don’t see how the EC is still necessary to entice smaller states to join the union. They’re not going anywhere.

Try to give it a little more thought. While it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of these states to leave the union at this point - the fact that might want to would be a problem. It would undermine national unity and the legitimacy of our democratic process.

 

[Redfish]

If your point was that you are a clueless, partisan, left-wing hack that never understood the Constitution, you would be right.

My point is that swing states have a massively out of proportion control over the election because, and solely because, arbitrary factors from the electoral college.

A politician is rewarded richly by the electoral college for pandering to industries and individuals from these swing states. Big parts of economic policy is driven not by what’s best for the country but what’s best for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can respond to these issues or you can just call people names. Your choice.

without the EC they would pander to LA, NY, Miami and Houston. WTF difference would it make? Politicians pander, thats how it works.

They’d campaign to as many people in as many places as they could. A voter in Tennessee carries no more weight than a voter in any of the cities you mentioned. The difference is that a voter’s worth is not determined by their location. Every vote counts the same.

Yes, but they would campaign where there are the most voters. Would you go to Cheyenne Wyoming or NYC if you were looking to maximize your PV?

God forbid they campaign where people actually live.

Are there voters in Cheyenne? Then yes. How many presidential candidates campaign in Cheyenne now? Zero.

don't be so naive, they would only campaign where there were large numbers of potential voters. Because those 4 places could swing the election.

None of us knows how the Cal PV would have come out if Trump had had several rallys in that state. He had rallys in Fla and won Fla, soooooooo