Jump to content

Are We the Stupidest Generation?


AFTiger

Recommended Posts





  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your vote? 

As opposed to their vote?

Yes, my vote. If my state voted for a candidate and overturned for large populous areas, I would be pissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Yes, my vote. If my state voted for a candidate and overturned for large populous areas, I would be pissed.

Even though that candidate got more votes?

Why should your vote count more than the votes for the other candidate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AFTiger said:

Because we are a republic not a democracy. 

Cop out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)

9 hours ago, AUDub said:

Cop out.

Yes, we are the stupidest generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2019 at 7:43 PM, AFTiger said:

Because we are a republic not a democracy. 

 

On 6/9/2019 at 9:14 PM, AUDub said:

Cop out.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Giving away the electoral college would further my politics, but it would also make about 40 states non-consequential in the Presidential Race. The Presidential Race would then become a race in only about 7-10 states.

Image result for no electoral college map

Found this map and was kind of shocked at the results as well. Please note the * by the first map. No matter how you break down the POC Vote, the Map was always 100% Blue. Women, Men, Black, Latino, Asian, etc. The map stayed 100% Blue. 

Image result for no electoral college map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ten most populous states: A Presidential nominee wouldnt have to carry but the majority of these 10 states to effectively win the Presidency. 

That is 168M of 330M. More than enough to win the election. The rest of the states would be effectively voiceless. 

1 California 40,017,007            
2 Texas 29,104,064            
3 Florida 21,640,022            
4 New York 19,875,625            
5 Pennsylvania 12,842,441            
6 Illinois 12,734,617            
7 Ohio 11,730,719            
8 Georgia 10,660,897            
9 North Carolina 10,506,879            
10 Michigan 10,020,043            
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Which is exactly why we have the electoral college. Good points DK.

Well, this is explained when you read about how the Constitution was enacted. It was a compromise that Protected small states in the Senate and Empowered big states in the HOR. The Electoral College, I was against it 30 years ago when the Republicans were winning in landslides and still not carrying all 50 states. Today, I am mature enough to enjoy that there are two sides to everything. While it is very messy, everyone, including the minority political groups should have a voice. 

Gerrymandering: a reprehensible idea. It should be stopped at all costs, yet when the Democrats ran everything they loved it and called it simply the spoils of winning. They had no issues whatsoever of gerrymandering every state when it suited them. Now, it is the evil of evils!

Truth: Karma is either your friend or your enemy, you get to decide which. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2019 at 8:46 AM, DKW 86 said:

The ten most populous states: A Presidential nominee wouldnt have to carry but the majority of these 10 states to effectively win the Presidency. 

That is 168M of 330M. More than enough to win the election. The rest of the states would be effectively voiceless. 

1 California 40,017,007            
2 Texas 29,104,064            
3 Florida 21,640,022            
4 New York 19,875,625            
5 Pennsylvania 12,842,441            
6 Illinois 12,734,617            
7 Ohio 11,730,719            
8 Georgia 10,660,897            
9 North Carolina 10,506,879            
10 Michigan 10,020,043            

Is that an argument against the electoral college?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Is that an argument against the electoral college?

Yes, I once supported its elimination, but now, not so much. They idea that 10 states could over run the other 40 is scary. This is why we have a Senate folks. Bicameral Legislature was designed for this purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2019 at 7:46 AM, DKW 86 said:

The ten most populous states: A Presidential nominee wouldnt have to carry but the majority of these 10 states to effectively win the Presidency. 

That is 168M of 330M. More than enough to win the election. The rest of the states would be effectively voiceless. 

1 California 40,017,007            
2 Texas 29,104,064            
3 Florida 21,640,022            
4 New York 19,875,625            
5 Pennsylvania 12,842,441            
6 Illinois 12,734,617            
7 Ohio 11,730,719            
8 Georgia 10,660,897            
9 North Carolina 10,506,879            
10 Michigan 10,020,043            

I'm sorry, but this is false logic.  Yes, these 10 states have half the population.  But for a campaign to only focus on those states would be political suicide.  No candidate is getting all of the votes in those places, which is what they would have to do in order for the other states not to matter.

No one is running up the score in Ohio, Michigan, Florida, or Pennsylvania.  Texas and Georgia are becoming more split with each passing election.  Even in liberal havens like New York and California, Hillary only garnered about 60% of the vote.  Now imagine if a Republican actually campaigned in those places.  Maybe the split would narrow some.  Same goes for spots like Alabama, where Dem voter turnout would likely increase knowing their vote actually matters now.

And as it stands now, the above 10 states would be about the same or even more states than candidates currently focus on during the general.  Swing states are currently the only ones getting any attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Yes, I once supported its elimination, but now, not so much. They idea that 10 states could over run the other 40 is scary. This is why we have a Senate folks. Bicameral Legislature was designed for this purpose. 

But removing the electoral college has no bearing on a bicameral legislature.  The Senate would stay as is, as would the House and the Judiciary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm sorry, but this is false logic.  Yes, these 10 states have half the population.  But for a campaign to only focus on those states would be political suicide.  No candidate is getting all of the votes in those places, which is what they would have to do in order for the other states not to matter.

No one is running up the score in Ohio, Michigan, Florida, or Pennsylvania.  Texas and Georgia are becoming more split with each passing election.  Even in liberal havens like New York and California, Hillary only garnered about 60% of the vote.  Now imagine if a Republican actually campaigned in those places.  Maybe the split would narrow some.  Same goes for spots like Alabama, where Dem voter turnout would likely increase knowing their vote actually matters now.

And as it stands now, the above 10 states would be about the same or even more states than candidates currently focus on during the general.  Swing states are currently the only ones getting any attention.

No one said that they were going to get ALL their votes from these 10. That's just crazy.

I would assume from following electoral maps since 1980 that all the candidate would have to do was split or stay close in the other 40 and that these 10 would put them over the top. The other 40 could be a competitive wash and they would sail to victory on the Top 10. My assumption was that you understood that. First, we dont have but maybe 50% of eligible voters even vote. Second, Like in 2016, HRC's margin was a loss of about 70K in three states to win the Electoral College. But she had a comfortable margin of 4.3M in California alone. In the total number of votes that allowed her to finish about 3M+ votes ahead nationally.  ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election In a sheer voter count election, HRC would have won on CA alone because HRC and DJT basically had a competitive wash in the other 49.

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

But removing the electoral college has no bearing on a bicameral legislature.  The Senate would stay as is, as would the House and the Judiciary.

 Duh...I was using the Constitutional bicameral legislature as a point of reference why the Founding Fathers were concerned that they should have an Electoral College. They  devised the bicam legislature to insure that larger population states didnt over power the smaller states. That was also figured into the EC. They were concerned enough with the problem that they factored in a bicameral legislature AND the EC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

No one said that they were going to get ALL their votes from these 10. That's just crazy.

I would assume from following electoral maps since 1980 that all the candidate would have to do was split or stay close in the other 40 and that these 10 would put them over the top. The other 40 could be a competitive wash and they would sail to victory on the Top 10. My assumption was that you understood that. First, we dont have but maybe 50% of eligible voters even vote. Second, Like in 2016, HRC's margin was a loss of about 70K in three states to win the Electoral College. But she had a comfortable margin of 4.3M in California alone. In the total number of votes that allowed her to finish about 3M+ votes ahead nationally.  ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election In a sheer voter count election, HRC would have won on CA alone because HRC and DJT basically had a competitive wash in the other 49.

 Duh...I was using the Constitutional bicameral legislature as a point of reference why the Founding Fathers were concerned that they should have an Electoral College. They  devised the bicam legislature to insure that larger population states didnt over power the smaller states. That was also figured into the EC. They were concerned enough with the problem that they factored in a bicameral legislature AND the EC.

So basic question.  What's the difference between 10 swing states choosing the President now vs 10 choosing in a popular vote?  It's still the same problem.  At least in a popular vote, everyone gets to actually have their vote matter.  Right now, if I lived in Alabama, my vote would be symbolic only.  The Senate is there for the smaller states to have an equal say.  The Presidency should be about every person having an equal say, because that office (and the VP) are the only ones we all vote for.  As for those votes in California, it must totally suck for them that people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin's votes were worth more than theirs.  Quite simply, it's not right.

I personally get tired of the founders argument.  It's an appeal to tradition, which is fallacious reasoning.  They were very smart men, but the world they lived in was vastly different than the one we live in.  Small states had legitimate beefs back then, because every state's economy was largely it's own.  Now, we're very much co-dependent.  It's time we re-examined some things with a modern lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So basic question.  What's the difference between 10 swing states choosing the President now vs 10 choosing in a popular vote?  It's still the same problem.  At least in a popular vote, everyone gets to actually have their vote matter.  Right now, if I lived in Alabama, my vote would be symbolic only.  The Senate is there for the smaller states to have an equal say.  The Presidency should be about every person having an equal say, because that office (and the VP) are the only ones we all vote for.  As for those votes in California, it must totally suck for them that people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin's votes were worth more than theirs.  Quite simply, it's not right.

I personally get tired of the founders argument.  It's an appeal to tradition, which is fallacious reasoning.  They were very smart men, but the world they lived in was vastly different than the one we live in.  Small states had legitimate beefs back then, because every state's economy was largely it's own.  Now, we're very much co-dependent.  It's time we re-examined some things with a modern lens.

Today the swing states are politically competitive swing states. Without the EC, the swing states, the ones that get you the win, turn out to be very politically stable. The EC has always had some states that were losers in the vote value race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Today the swing states are politically competitive swing states. Without the EC, the swing states, the ones that get you the win, turn out to be very politically stable. The EC has always had some states that were losers in the vote value race.

Which is a monster problem and a large reason why I support eradicating the EC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California

JOHN MERLINE12/16/2016


Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.


In recent years, California has been turning into what amounts to a one-party state. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Californian's who registered as Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans dropped by almost 400,000.

What's more, many Republicans in the state had nobody to vote for in November.

There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats.

Plus, since Republicans knew Clinton was going to win the state — and its entire 55 electoral votes — casting a ballot for Trump was virtually meaningless, since no matter what her margin of victory, Clinton was getting all 55 votes.

Is it any wonder then, that Trump got 11% fewer California votes than John McCain did in 2008? (Clinton got 6% more votes than Obama did eight years ago, but the number of registered Democrats in the state climbed by 13% over those years.)

If you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state — where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins — Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)

Meanwhile, if you look at every other measure, Trump was the clear and decisive winner in this election.

***

Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
_________________
Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
_________________
Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
_________________
Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
_________________
Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
_________________
Trump: + 1.4 million

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

So basic question.  What's the difference between 10 swing states choosing the President now vs 10 choosing in a popular vote?  It's still the same problem.  At least in a popular vote, everyone gets to actually have their vote matter.  Right now, if I lived in Alabama, my vote would be symbolic only.  The Senate is there for the smaller states to have an equal say.  The Presidency should be about every person having an equal say, because that office (and the VP) are the only ones we all vote for.  As for those votes in California, it must totally suck for them that people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin's votes were worth more than theirs.  Quite simply, it's not right.

I personally get tired of the founders argument.  It's an appeal to tradition, which is fallacious reasoning.  They were very smart men, but the world they lived in was vastly different than the one we live in.  Small states had legitimate beefs back then, because every state's economy was largely it's own.  Now, we're very much co-dependent.  It's time we re-examined some things with a modern lens.

And let's not forget that slavery was baked into all of their considerations regarding representation.

As you say, the senate alone provides a huge leveler when it comes to small states with small populations.  There is no need to have their individual votes for a national office to greatly outweigh the individual vote coming from a more populous state.  The POTUS should represent the people, not some sort of weighted tally of states which gives some people much more representation than others.  It's bizarre. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Which is a monster problem and a large reason why I support eradicating the EC.

Then, you may well be living in one of those places where your vote doesnt matter at all.

You are okay with that? Or is this just about who would have won in 2016?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice the common thread? 

A positive view of socialism

Destruction of the electoral college

A religious belief in man caused climate change.

We must destroy America in order to "save" it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AFTiger said:

 

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California

JOHN MERLINE12/16/2016


Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.

To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears.

As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.

California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

I didnt even consider the Regional Candidate, but that would likely be the end result of getting rid of the EC. Soon, all Presdential Candidates Nominees would come from Harvard Educated Californians. We already have a glut of Harvard Educated Presidents. But now we could have them come exclusively from CA too. That would be bad for the nation. Soon we could have all preseidents nominees be White Male Harvard Educated Democrats from California. Who is in favor of that? 

Imagine if we had gotten rid of the EC in 2000. We could have not even seen Obama on the map.  You want to go down this course, get ready for a very likely paradigm shift in Elections. White Male Harvard Educated California Democrats would soon be the rule in the US.

Congrats, you just made Adam Schiff President for the next 8 years.

Image result for adam schiff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...