MyOwn Posted September 3, 2020 Share Posted September 3, 2020 Money and Folks that have enough to influence every human through division....That's it.... I'm still for the popular vote 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjptkd Posted September 3, 2020 Share Posted September 3, 2020 2 hours ago, MyOwn said: I'm still for the popular vote How is that fair at all? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyOwn Posted September 3, 2020 Share Posted September 3, 2020 Just now, jjptkd said: How is that fair at all? Nah man...Not buying into this...Why do we need 2 Dakotas...4 Senators from the Dakotas... Lock this now. it's all political 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OO1 Posted September 3, 2020 Share Posted September 3, 2020 13 minutes ago, jjptkd said: How is that fair at all? it is fair , because States can have more population , and , once they do , the vote changes , it's all about residents and votes , the formula is good , but you have to equal the playing field first , by boosting the population in less populated States to balance the vote equally , that will happen one day , but the Country is still Young - - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 + for Electoral College since I don't want big city people that cant figure out what they are telling me what I need, or have to do, way out in the country. The reason it was created was so cities could not dominate areas they did not live in by votes alone and where people do not want to live and act like city slickers do. The vast majority of the USA outside of urban areas does not want to be like Chicago, LA, NY NY, Portland or Detroit. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyOwn Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 ^^^Good stuff and understand it... Still, I'm for popular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 The USA was set up as a Republic because the Founding Fathers well understood the tyranny that votes alone have always ended up with. Eventually people discover unearned and undeserved plunder forcibly taken from their neighbors by the power of majority votes and satisfaction in telling their fellow men what they HAVE to do and then it all ends in trouble. Always. The USA was not created as nor is it a Democracy thankfully and that makes it much harder for those who want dictatorial control and freebies. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjptkd Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 1 hour ago, MyOwn said: Lock this now. it's all political This is a political discussion we are talking about government politics? It cracks me up when a topic like this comes up where you have an "A" or "B" situation and each viewpoint pretty much always goes along party lines so voicing your opinion is almost certainly going to expose your political leanings and when someone voices an opposing viewpoint someone from the other side cries about it?? Lock her up! I mean lock it up! that was an accidentally slip sorry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjptkd Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 Land doesn't vote, people do. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sputnik Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Dave A said: ........The USA was not created as nor is it a Democracy thankfully............. “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave A Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 11 hours ago, sputnik said: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 Yes conversation can take you places. Back to the trenches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted September 4, 2020 Author Share Posted September 4, 2020 19 hours ago, Dave A said: + for Electoral College since I don't want big city people that cant figure out what they are telling me what I need, or have to do, way out in the country. The reason it was created was so cities could not dominate areas they did not live in by votes alone and where people do not want to live and act like city slickers do. The vast majority of the USA outside of urban areas does not want to be like Chicago, LA, NY NY, Portland or Detroit. Technically not true. That is the de facto effect, however, The college was created to elect the executive branch. Remember, as you of course understand, that is the only vote that counts. There is no right for anyone to vote in the constitution other than the electoral college. The commoner was never meant to have any real power of the vote, no matter where they lived. Return to the link I posted about what the constitution does not say about the right to vote. I am not arguing against its existence, but let's all get things straight if possible. Backwards looking logic does little to enhance understanding. According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, each state legislature determines the manner by which its state's electors are chosen. The number of each state's electors is equal to the sum of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, oldtimer said: The number of each state's electors is equal to the sum of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives. This is the end result and all that matters. If the article I referenced earlier is correct, no election was ever decided by faithless electors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2016 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted September 5, 2020 Author Share Posted September 5, 2020 Good point. The constitution leaves it up to the states how to choose electors. There would be no such thing as "faithless" electors without state laws determining such. Jeff, yes the practical point is how many electors each state is assigned. True to consistency with the representation by population of the states, plus two senators for Congress, it ties together the document as a framework for the nation. To me, it does matter why, because otherwise we eventually end up like children in the outback telling tales of the before times. The composition of the college has everything to do with state populations (not voter populations), and was not as some would posit a city mouse versus country mouse solution. This is made obvious with how the population was to be counted, and who had the vote. Remember, slaves were counted as a percentage to boost representation of some states, when no one in their right mind would argue that the slaves themselves would be represented, or could possibly vote. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted September 6, 2020 Share Posted September 6, 2020 15 hours ago, oldtimer said: and was not as some would posit a city mouse versus country mouse solution. It sort-of is. The part about the 2 senators wasn't for the sake of senators. It was to level the field between agrarian states and states with large cities. You could say based on "population," and that would practically be a synonym. They don't build skyscrapers on farms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted September 6, 2020 Author Share Posted September 6, 2020 2 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said: It sort-of is. The part about the 2 senators wasn't for the sake of senators. It was to level the field between agrarian states and states with large cities. You could say based on "population," and that would practically be a synonym. They don't build skyscrapers on farms. They didn't build skyscrapers at all back then. Practically a synonym, maybe, but the point is population, not city/country. If the whole population of NYC for example, all moved to Alaska (yes an anachronism), then all of a sudden that state would gain a whole lot more representation, even if they spread themselves out in that massive land without congregating in cities. The part about senators in the legislative branch was to level the field in a higher body of representation than the house, which not only gave the less populous states an even representation, but gave every state equal representation. It still really wasn't about agrarian or not, since back then most of the country was agrarian. Again refer to the slavery population question. Those with the vote in those states wanted to boost their representation through a percentage in the census of all humans in the state, not just the voting humans. Think on that. The point is it was not based on voting population. Theoretically it isn't now, either. Note the lack of city mouse/country mouse: https://www.thoughtco.com/great-compromise-of-1787-3322289 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted September 6, 2020 Share Posted September 6, 2020 You make a fair argument there with doing away with the college. Why not just give citizens of low pop states 2 per voter, or more votes after doing averaging per state of pop...equal rep... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts