What's new
By:

Steve Bannon Quotes

This is an idea I had and this is how it would work for Utah.

Each candidate on the ballot would submit a list of 6 electors and they should be prominent people. You would designate the electors based on percentage of vote achieved in the state. In Utah, having 6 electors, 16.6% of the vote would be required to "claim" an elector.(33.3% to claim 2 and so on). Any unclaimed electors should go to whoever gets the most votes in the state.

This election Trump would have gotten 4 electors, Clinton 1, and McMullin 1.
 
Last edited:
dalamon said:
you gotta love me ripping on white supremacists being hilariously ugly, and Hack immediately coming to their defence.


Rather.....interesting.
Click to expand...

That doesnt sound like defending. You make it up in your head. I was pointing out your hypocrisy. How can you be against racism, but then engage in it on a daily basis. Shouldnt you take the higher road. They go low, you go high.

You suffer from Caucasianphobia. You should stop reading alt left news. Come to the middle where normal people are.
 
♪alt13 said:
This is an idea I had and this is how it would work for Utah.

Each candidate on the ballot would submit a list of 6 electors and they should be prominent people. You would designate the electors based on percentage of vote achieved in the state. In Utah, having 6 electors, 16.6% of the vote would be required to "claim" an elector.(33.3% to claim 2 and so on). Any unclaimed electors should go to whoever gets the most votes in the state.

This election Trump would have gotten 4 electors, Clinton 1, and McMullin 1.
Click to expand...
What is the advantage of doing it this way over a straight popular vote?
 
b_line said:
So apparently Mitt Romney is being considered for Sec of State
Click to expand...
I heard he is going to be meeting with Trump soon. Would he turn down the position if offered because of his dislike for Trump, or would he take it in the hope of preventing disaster? Hmm.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Idk if they can. Whether they can or cant, i think that the electoral college should be scrapped.
Click to expand...

I read today that over 700 proposals have been submitted in congress over the last 200 years to scrap the electoral college. It looks like there's a good reason it's stood the test of time.

I like the check on unbridled majoritarianism. People seem to want change for the sake of change these days instead of meaningful results.
 
franklin said:
I read today that over 700 proposals have been submitted in congress over the last 200 years to scrap the electoral college. It looks like there's a good reason it's stood the test of time.

I like the check on unbridled majoritarianism. People seem to want change for the sake of change these days instead of meaningful results.
Click to expand...

...the irony being that, in an increasingly diverse USA, it's turning into a tool for majoritarianism.
 
franklin said:
I read today that over 700 proposals have been submitted in congress over the last 200 years to scrap the electoral college. It looks like there's a good reason it's stood the test of time.

I like the check on unbridled majoritarianism. People seem to want change for the sake of change these days instead of meaningful results.
Click to expand...

I dont really care what the change is I want change for the sake of getting more people to vote and feel like their vote matters and they are heard. Right now your vote does not matter if you are not in a swing state.

One of the reasons we started this was because the leaders of our country felt the average person was too stupid to decide who our leader is.

Big population states already have a larger influence than smaller states. They influence the election a lot and candidates spend more time were they can get more electoral votes. Small places like Wyoming get very little attention. California has 55 votes for their 38,332,521 population so about 711k per electoral vote. Wyoming population is 586,107 and their 3 votes that is 198k of their population going to each vote. So the for every person that votes in wyoming that vote counts 3X as much as someone from California. That is supposed to even it out but why should someone who lives in one state vote count more than from another? Are they more important to deciding the President. If the answer is yes than we have another problem. People from big cities vote counts more towards their states decision than small towns due to their population. So now we have prioritized that the most important people in deciding the election are from small states but big cities. Just let peoples vote count the same and more people will vote. This election was close enough that a small percentage of more people voting could have decided the election from any where. I have very little motivation to vote for the President in Utah. Straight ticket voters decide this state regardless of who the candidates are. I only vote because I care more about local stuff than the president. Although this seems to be the year that straight ticket voters won out. We did not have a single purple state. More people than any election ever voted straight ticket for president and senate. But that is a tangent.
 
Ron Mexico said:
I dont really care what the change is I want change for the sake of getting more people to vote and feel like their vote matters and they are heard. Right now your vote does not matter if you are not in a swing state.

One of the reasons we started this was because the leaders of our country felt the average person was too stupid to decide who our leader is.

Big population states already have a larger influence than smaller states. They influence the election a lot and candidates spend more time were they can get more electoral votes. Small places like Wyoming get very little attention. California has 55 votes for their 38,332,521 population so about 711k per electoral vote. Wyoming population is 586,107 and their 3 votes that is 198k of their population going to each vote. So the for every person that votes in wyoming that vote counts 3X as much as someone from California. That is supposed to even it out but why should someone who lives in one state vote count more than from another? Are they more important to deciding the President. If the answer is yes than we have another problem. People from big cities vote counts more towards their states decision than small towns due to their population. So now we have prioritized that the most important people in deciding the election are from small states but big cities. Just let peoples vote count the same and more people will vote. This election was close enough that a small percentage of more people voting could have decided the election from any where. I have very little motivation to vote for the President in Utah. Straight ticket voters decide this state regardless of who the candidates are. I only vote because I care more about local stuff than the president. Although this seems to be the year that straight ticket voters won out. We did not have a single purple state. More people than any election ever voted straight ticket for president and senate. But that is a tangent.
Click to expand...
Where's the info for that? I didn't know it existed.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Ill try and track down the report on it. Although they count straight ticket as if you voted for the same party in both President and Congress positions.
Click to expand...

I don't care about that. All I care about are the people that selected the straight ticket option, not who consciously voted each specific individual on each selection.

If both were there but separated, it would be adequate.

Your rant is also ignoring what the electorate system is, a mix of Senate and House principles. You must REALLY hate the Senate if you hate the electoral college. Senator from Wyoming represents 267k+ people while Californian senator represents 18.8 or so million people (use 2010 numbers). Electorate is decided by adding reps and senators. The divide in senator representation causes the divergence. The check on "majoritism" that Franklin already alluded to works.

Also, the parties aren't going to change how they campaign much electoral to straight. The swing states have proven that they're willing to switch votes. No reason to go anywhere else. The voter turnout difference is compelling, but there's no real proof that the one party states would have their percentages change. Same reason why people don't vote because their party isn't going to win is the same reason people don't vote because their party is going to win.

Also, clamoring for straight vote eliminates third parties even more. MacMullin actually had a tangible change, albeit very slim, to win the White House. Absolutely zero chance under straight voting. The two party system would grab an even stronger stranglehold with straight voting.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
I don't care about that. All I care about are the people that selected the straight ticket option, not who consciously voted each specific individual on each selection.

If both were there but separated, it would be adequate.

Your rant is also ignoring what the electorate system is, a mix of Senate and House principles. You must REALLY hate the Senate if you hate the electoral college.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge they do not have that info just if people are voting all republican or all democrat. Which to me in the same thing and I think a majority of people who have done that click the straight ticket option.

The only thing I hate is that this system prevents people from voting. There are multiple problems with it including the reasons it started but all of that is secondary to the fact that we have one of the lowest voter turnouts of any country that has democracy and I firmly believe this is one of the major reason. I think the senate is a good check for "majoratism" we dont also need our president selected off the same numbers. I like the numbers and representation of the senate.
 
Ron Mexico said:
To my knowledge they do not have that info just if people are voting all republican or all democrat. Which to me in the same thing and I think a majority of people who have done that click the straight ticket option.

The only thing I hate is that this system prevents people from voting. There are multiple problems with it including the reasons it started but all of that is secondary to the fact that we have one of the lowest voter turnouts of any country that has democracy and I firmly believe this is one of the major reason. I think the senate is a good check for "majoratism" we dont also need our president selected off the same numbers. I like the numbers and representation of the senate.
Click to expand...

Voter turnout in non-presidential elections are much, much lower than presidential elections.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Voter turnout in non-presidential elections are much, much lower than presidential elections.
Click to expand...

That is true. I still think our presidential election should be better represented from this country and making the majority of people feel like their vote doesnt matter (because it doesnt) is a problem,.
 
Computer said:
That doesnt sound like defending. You make it up in your head. I was pointing out your hypocrisy. How can you be against racism, but then engage in it on a daily basis. Shouldnt you take the higher road. They go low, you go high.

You suffer from Caucasianphobia. You should stop reading alt left news. Come to the middle where normal people are.
Click to expand...

All of this because I called Steve Bannon & David Duke ugly, folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top