do you agree with the electoral college stsyem?

[Toothless King]

Without electoral college, United States of America would rename itself to California Republic.

 

[oldshadow]

Despite your objections to how he's phrasing and framing things, he's ultimately correct that rural states have disproportionately high political clout. That's certainly true in regards to population and, likely, economic contribution. Why does a rural state vote count more toward the presidential election than a more urban state vote? Why do rural voters get disproportionately higher House representation relative to city voters (via gerrymandering)? Why do rural voters get disproportionately higher Senate representation relative to population numbers?

Regardless of what JVS may or may not want, the current situation is that rural states--and counties--have control disproportionate to their population at the federal level in two of the three branches of government.

The house is by population and reflects that with the most representatives going to the states with the most population.

What do want to be done make rural states share representatives so the left can get what they want with no opposition.

Both side gerrymandered as soon they have the power which pisses the other side off and like I said ends up in court. Gerrymandering also help minorities in cases where the lines are drawn to help them become the majority or it can be used the opposite way.

So I don't support freedom of speech for dumb hicks? Or their freedom to practice their dumb hick religion? Or are you saying that "controlling and dominating" means "implementing policy that they may not agree with." If that's it, do you think the corrective is to let a minority "control and dominate" everyone else?



You're assuming that everyone is as much of a dishonorable piece of shit as you apparently are. That's not the case.



Um, no it would not. Civil rights are, as I said, the corrective to tyranny of the majority. Giving the minority control over the gov't is not. Really, think about your position here.



Is it "elitism" that dumb hicks want their policy preferences to be enacted? No. Everyone wants the policy that they think is best. And the way we decide it is democracy, though our form has some flaws that give disproportionate representation to certain people (coincidentally, mostly people who philosophically do not believe in equal rights).



States rights are privileged over human rights because of compromises we made with opponents of human rights.

You can try and fool others and name call but going by you post history it is plain how you feel about the south and rural areas in particular.

States rights were always about preventing states with larger population ruling and becoming dictators over states with smaller populations.

The constitution protects the minority and that's how its suppose to work, rights not specifically given to the federal government fall to the people and the states, as it should be.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You can try and fool others and name call but going by you post history it is plain how you feel about the south and rural areas in particular.

First, you have no standing at all for this kind of whining. I posted a simple fact (that the electoral college is about giving unfair representation to people in small states). You responded with a vicious and dishonest personal attack. I ignored that and clarified the factual point, and you responded with more personal attacks. You just showed that you have no personal honor and that you can't even conceive of the fact that many of us are simply better people than you are. Second, I have never made an effort to hide my contempt for Southern politics.

States rights were always about preventing states with larger population ruling and becoming dictators over states with smaller populations.

No, they were always about a weak justification for preventing human-rights abuses. This is very obvious when you look at what they were used for, who was arguing for them, etc. The South to this day is dominated by identity politics, and the dominant party there is completely dead intellectually.

The constitution protects the minority and that's how its suppose to work, rights not specifically given to the federal government fall to the people and the states, as it should be.

The Constitution protects the minority by laying out explicit rights. The electoral college has nothing at all to do with the protection of rights--it's the exact opposite, in fact.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Yes, to protect the Republic from the lunacy and tyranny of the masses.

By replacing it with the lunacy and tyranny of select minorities.

 

[sverre054]

There is issues with it, and is a old system. Due to gerrymandering, which the parties have tried to use to there advantage over the years, I don't see the system changing anytime soon. There are many red states in particular that gerrymandering has given a huge advantage too. If they changed those rules, and voting districts they have changed to control votes, elections which would be much harder to control.

 

[James Keith]

Biggest non-issue ever. Mathematically the difference between electoral college votes and the popular vote is negligible.

Yes but that doesn't necessarily mean the popular vote winner would be the same if the candidates campaigned for popular votes instead of for electoral votes.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

I'm a conservative in CA and think it's bullshit that all 55 electoral votes go to the Democrats. Makes me feel like my votes don't count. What says you sherdog? Can anybody support the current system?

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f54/electoral-college-2253817/


Just saying...

 

[James Keith]

You mean so that less-populated areas were *unfairly* represented, right?

The federal govt isn't tasked with regulating "inter-area commerce", it regulates states.

If it was also supposed to regulate intrastate commerce, such that state borders meant little to nothing, then you'd have a case, but of course that isn't what the constitution says.

 

[oldshadow]

First, you have no standing at all for this kind of whining. I posted a simple fact (that the electoral college is about giving unfair representation to people in small states). You responded with a vicious and dishonest personal attack. I ignored that and clarified the factual point, and you responded with more personal attacks. You just showed that you have no personal honor and that you can't even conceive of the fact that many of us are simply better people than you are. Second, I have never made an effort to hide my contempt for Southern politics.



No, they were always about a weak justification for preventing human-rights abuses. This is very obvious when you look at what they were used for, who was arguing for them, etc. The South to this day is dominated by identity politics, and the dominant party there is completely dead intellectually.



The Constitution protects the minority by laying out explicit rights. The electoral college has nothing at all to do with the protection of rights--it's the exact opposite, in fact.

Well one thing for sure we will never see common ground on this issue, as far as personal attacks you started that and every time you post anything about the south and southern people in general you make it a personal attack.

The good thing is no matter what you wish for the chances of what you want to happen are slim and none.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The house is by population and reflects that with the most representatives going to the states with the most population.

What do want to be done make rural states share representatives so the left can get what they want with no opposition.

Both side gerrymandered as soon they have the power which pisses the other side off and like I said ends up in court. Gerrymandering also help minorities in cases where the lines are drawn to help them become the majority or it can be used the opposite way.

Yes, the House is by population. I never stated otherwise. However, as you full well know, gerrymandering is a very real issue. You're pretending that I'm fine with gerrymandering when it favors democrats and that's simply not the case. You, however, do seem totally fine with gerrymandering favoring republicans, as is currently the situation. It is currently the case that the GOP is vastly over-represented in the House relative to the votes it gets and that's in no small part due to gerrymandering.

I certainly do not want rural states to share representatives (where did that come from, I didn't suggest states having less than one rep). However, it is absolutely undeniable that currently, across both houses of congress and the executive branch the situation is such that rural voters have a disproportionate influence relative to their population.

Your screeching about disenfranchising rural voters would be a lot more sympathetic if it weren't in defense of devaluing the worth of votes from more populous areas. As an aside, for the past two and a half years my vote has been worth far, far more than it ever was previously. Nonetheless I can recognize that that imbalance is inappropriate.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well one thing for sure we will never see common ground on this issue, as far as personal attacks you started that and every time you post anything about the south and southern people in general you make it a personal attack.

You are mistaken. Here is the train:

You mean so that less-populated areas were *unfairly* represented, right?

How about so the majority does not have absolute control on the minority, something you should be in favor of.

What prevents the majority from having absolute control over the minority is the notion of rights and a constitution. Giving outsized control to people who live in Southern states has zero impact on that issue.

You statement is answered and what applies to people applies to states.

(FIRST PERSONAL ATTACK)For you the only fair thing to you would be the places that support your political ideas should count and only power should rest in the hands of the people you approve of.

Which is why it's set up the way it is to prevent that kind of bull shit.

Why are you lying about me?

It's simply a fact that the purpose of the electoral college is to give people living in less-populated areas unfair representation. And doing that in no way protects anyone's rights. You don't prevent tyranny of the majority by supporting tyranny of the minority--you do it by generally protecting human rights.

(BUNCH OF PERSONAL STUFF)Bull you want anyone living in the more rural states not to have the power to prevent the urban states from controlling and dominate them.

You want the ability for the federal government run by the people you like, to set and enforce policy you want and to get that you must take the ability to fight from the less populated states.

The government was set up to prevent this as much as possible, however the civil rights movement would have taken a blow under your idea.

This is standard liberal elitism that believe they know what is best and they should run things and the "dumb hicks" should just do what they are told for their own good.

This why states rights are guaranteed and why the government is set up to prevent this and that would apply to the right or left.

You should show some integrity and just admit it. And, you know, if you want to attack me personally simply for pointing out that you're wrong, that's your right. Whatever. But don't then turn around and start whining that I'm not playing nice with you and try to use that as an excuse to duck the substance. You're revealing precisely what I find contemptible about Southern (Republican) politics--it's 100% identity and no interest in actual ideas or policy.

The good thing is no matter what you wish for the chances of what you want to happen are slim and none.

The better thing is that the GOP's strategy of trying to win by appealing to white racists is a long-term losing strategy in national elections (they can still win in loser states).

 

[oldshadow]

You are mistaken. Here is the train:













You should show some integrity and just admit it. And, you know, if you want to attack me personally simply for pointing out that you're wrong, that's your right. Whatever. But don't then turn around and start whining that I'm not playing nice with you and try to use that as an excuse to duck the substance. You're revealing precisely what I find contemptible about Southern (Republican) politics--it's 100% identity and no interest in actual ideas or policy.



The better thing is that the GOP's strategy of trying to win by appealing to white racists is a long-term losing strategy in national elections (they can still win in loser states).

None of that was a personal attack; I was attacking your beliefs and view as shown in other posts.

You are more than welcome to and have been attacking me in the same way, however call me names is in fact a personal attack.

I don

 

[Jack V Savage]

None of that was a personal attack; I was attacking your beliefs and view as shown in other posts.

Not my actual beliefs, of course. Just what you dishonestly and irrelevantly claim to be my beliefs (irrelevant because there's an actual discussion going on with things I'm really saying in a thread devoted to a specific topic).

You are more than welcome to and have been attacking me in the same way, however call me names is in fact a personal attack.

I don't deny that I think you are of low character. I didn't bring it up until your second post that had nothing to do with the discussion and was just a personal attack on someone who dared to disagree with you.

I don

 

[oldshadow]

Not my actual beliefs, of course. Just what you dishonestly and irrelevantly claim to be my beliefs (irrelevant because there's an actual discussion going on with things I'm really saying in a thread devoted to a specific topic).



I don't deny that I think you are of low character. I didn't bring it up until your second post that had nothing to do with the discussion and was just a personal attack on someone who dared to disagree with you.



More nonsense. Anything to avoid the actual issue, I guess.

I

 

[Jack V Savage]

The methods used to seat congress evens the playing field and I support it.

You're wrong, though. It makes the playing field uneven. An even playing field is one person, one vote.

As stated in electing a president I would have no problem a populist vote as long as we have good voter ID laws and other safe guards to assure a fair count everywhere.

Er, so you agree with me (and you buy into dumb arguments that the GOP uses to suppress minority votes).

And don

 

[oldshadow]

You're wrong, though. It makes the playing field uneven. An even playing field is one person, one vote.



Er, so you agree with me (and you buy into dumb arguments that the GOP uses to suppress minority votes).



Huh?

I support a republic not a strict democracy.

I’m not sure how big a problem we have with voter misconduct including officials but I want the system improved to eliminate it at all and both sides are guilty.

You are not center Jack even if you really believe you are.

 

[James Keith]

You are mistaken. Here is the train:...

And you're calling a guy a "piece of shit" over that?

You are the poster boy for narcissistic rage.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And you're calling a guy a "piece of shit" over that?

You are the poster boy for narcissistic rage.

A "dishonorable piece of shit." I would say that honor is an objective thing. I'm not raging, just making a judgment. But, like OS, you seem to assume that everyone else is like you.

 

[oldshadow]

A "dishonorable piece of shit." I would say that honor is an objective thing. I'm not raging, just making a judgment. But, like OS, you seem to assume that everyone else is like you.

If nothing else you bring humor to a thread, even if you don’t mean to.

 

[James Keith]

A "dishonorable piece of shit." I would say that honor is an objective thing. I'm not raging, just making a judgment. But, like OS, you seem to assume that everyone else is like you.

mmhmm. I'd certainly bet that everyone else is like me enough to see that as quite a bit beyond a mild flame. If you were indeed merely shooting for your usual passive aggressive level of insult (yeah right) I'd suggest some editing..