What's new
By:

Sanders starting to kick some HC... whatever

The problem with the EC is that the popular vote can be essentially vetoed by the EC. That to me seems backwards.
 
Siro said:
Why shouldn't states with bigger populations have more say than smaller ones? That how it would work even if you eliminated the EC.
Click to expand...

I think they were talking about Iowa and New Hampshire holding their primaries/caucuses first. Those states get to go first because they do. That should change.

As far as the EC the bigger issue is that most states are winner take all. I would be for an amendment that forced states to award only 1 of their electors to the winner and then the rest being split according to the percentage of the vote received. I'm not concerned that we have an electoral college just how the electors are allocated.
 
♪alt13 said:
I think they were talking about Iowa and New Hampshire holding their primaries/caucuses first. Those states get to go first because they do. That should change.

As far as the EC the bigger issue is that most states are winner take all. I would be for an amendment that forced states to award only 1 of their electors to the winner and then the rest being split according to the percentage of the vote received. I'm not concerned that we have an electoral college just how the electors are allocated.
Click to expand...

I concur.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
Well, it's basically a tie in Iowa, and Bernie is almost certain to take NH, so who knows ... I've been campaigning for him here in Ohio, canvassing, a little phone banking, had a major event when he did his live remote for supporters (70 people showed). He's my candidate of a lifetime. Hillary is seriously evil. Watch the Clinton Chronicles, or the film about Mena, or read the book about Vince Foster's death (murder / cover-up). I'm originally from upstate NY and Bernie has been saying the same things for 30 years.
Click to expand...
It is just bizarre to me that so many people are excited about electing a socialist. Bernie strikes me as a good and honest man, but I strongly disagree with his politics. There is a reason this country leads the world in innovation, and has for generations, and it is free enterprise. I never dreamed that Americans would willingly turn socialist.
 
Siro said:
Why shouldn't states with bigger populations have more say than smaller ones? That how it would work even if you eliminated the EC.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't every American's vote count? The reason for the EC was that it was impossible to count all the votes when this country was first founded, so they elected state representatives who all traveled to DC and figured out who would be president. Most states adopted a system where all of the delegates from their state had to vote for the same candidate. As a result, states that lean heavily in one political direction are essentially irrelevant in the process as the real race comes down to the same swing states every year. Ohio and Florida, for instance are critical. Utah and Hawaii don't matter at all.

With modern technology it would be easy to get rid of the EC, but they never will because then candidates would have to campaign across the entire country rather than focusing almost all of their energy, attention and money on the few states that will ultimately matter.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Why shouldn't every American's vote count? The reason for the EC was that it was impossible to count all the votes when this country was first founded, so they elected state representatives who all traveled to DC and figured out who would be president. Most states adopted a system where all of the delegates from their state had to vote for the same candidate. As a result, states that lean heavily in one political direction are essentially irrelevant in the process as the real race comes down to the same swing states every year. Ohio and Florida, for instance are critical. Utah and Hawaii don't matter at all.

With modern technology it would be easy to get rid of the EC, but they never will because then candidates would have to campaign across the entire country rather than focusing almost all of their energy, attention and money on the few states that will ultimately matter.
Click to expand...

That is not why we have an electoral college. You made that up.

The electoral college was put in place to try and prevent democratic tyranny, unqualified presidents, and factionalism. Ironic, isn't it?

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
It is just bizarre to me that so many people are excited about electing a socialist. Bernie strikes me as a good and honest man, but I strongly disagree with his politics. There is a reason this country leads the world in innovation, and has for generations, and it is free enterprise. I never dreamed that Americans would willingly turn socialist.
Click to expand...

According to the global innovation index, the world leaders in innovation are, in order: Switzerland, United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, USA, Finland, Singapore, Ireland.

If Bernie Sanders policies were brought up in any of those other countries barely anyone would bat an eyelid. He's not some left wing nut, the USA has just been dragged so far to the right.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
It is just bizarre to me that so many people are excited about electing a socialist. Bernie strikes me as a good and honest man, but I strongly disagree with his politics. There is a reason this country leads the world in innovation, and has for generations, and it is free enterprise. I never dreamed that Americans would willingly turn socialist.
Click to expand...

Germany whooped America's *** in innovation for decades. The stories about Americans leaving their weapons and grabbing German ones are particularly lol worthy, as are the stories about how many German scientists were swiped during/after the war years. And all of this with Germany becoming a country a full 105 years after America.


And also, America turned socialist ever since FDR. Speaking of political terms in absolutes is an excercise for the unsophisticated and unintelligent. You are neither, which is why it's troublesome when you do so.
 
Y'all just need to understand that Bernie is the only realistic presidential candidate who won't plunge America into another war in the Middle East. Everyone else from Hillary to Cruz will do so. His record and statements on foreign military intervention is/are impeccable
 
♪alt13 said:
That is not why we have an electoral college. You made that up.

The electoral college was put in place to try and prevent democratic tyranny, unqualified presidents, and factionalism. Ironic, isn't it?

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
Click to expand...
If it was made up it wasn't me who did it. Thanks for pointing out another reason, though. I'm going to research this. Either way, it seems unfair that we are using a system where the vast majority of votes don't actually matter.
 
fgcamel said:
According to the global innovation index, the world leaders in innovation are, in order: Switzerland, United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, USA, Finland, Singapore, Ireland.

If Bernie Sanders policies were brought up in any of those other countries barely anyone would bat an eyelid. He's not some left wing nut, the USA has just been dragged so far to the right.
Click to expand...
The US has not been dragged to the right. It has never been on the left. It's only recently that people seem interested in going there. There has never been a serious candidate for the president who is as far left as BS.

I have a hard time believing that this country lags behind others in innovation, though it doesn't surprise me that someone could come up with a way of measuring it that doesn't put the United States on top.
 
dalamon said:
The stories about Americans leaving their weapons and grabbing German ones are particularly lol worthy, as are the stories about how many German scientists were swiped during/after the war years. And all of this with Germany becoming a country a full 105 years after America.
Click to expand...

You may find this hard to believe but there was a time when the US didn't lead the world in military spending. In the mid to late 1930's Germany's military expenditures in relation to GDP was the largest in the world and about 5 times that of The United States, so yeah it makes sense that they had better weapons and a better trained weapons development staff than everyone else.
 
Siro said:
I don't like the EC, and I think it is a pointless system. But bigger states would still have more sway regardless. It is inherent in a democracy.
Click to expand...
Actually rather than a state having more sway it would be the individuals in the each state that would have more sway.

For instance let's say that currently california votes democrat. The whole vote goes to the democratic candidate. Even if the vote within the state was very very close (49% republican and 51% democrat)
So that has a ton of sway.

If it was popular vote instead of EC then it wouldn't hold near as much sway because the republican candidate would get all those votes now that didn't count at all under the EC
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I have a hard time believing that this country lags behind others in innovation, though it doesn't surprise me that someone could come up with a way of measuring it that doesn't put the United States on top.
Click to expand...

america-best-damn-country-ever.jpg


I mean, yeah, if you believe that the US is the greatest country in the world by a mile, you'd have trouble believing anyone would vote Sanders. If you believe that the current system isn't working out for you as well as it is for some other people, you might see things differently.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
It is just bizarre to me that so many people are excited about electing a socialist. Bernie strikes me as a good and honest man, but I strongly disagree with his politics. There is a reason this country leads the world in innovation, and has for generations, and it is free enterprise. I never dreamed that Americans would willingly turn socialist.
Click to expand...

He's not a SOCIALIST! But he does want to implement some socialistic programs. There is a BIG difference. That's why he calls himself a democratic socialist, someone who wants to use government through a democratic process that will protect the interests of the people from the greed and corruption of the corporations and banks, whose lack of government oversight has ruined our economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top