(08-17-2016 08:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:I don't know what you're talking about with your 21 v 89 except for the fact the electoral college protects the large populated but geographically compact areas from dominating the less populated but geographically expanse areas.

It is possible to win the electoral college with just 21% of the popular vote.The EC protects rural from city. it does not protect city from rural.

Quote:No other country in this earth is as big and diverse as the US. We have always been a mishmash whether it's large v small, urban v rural, north v south, slave v free. Large population and urban often coincide as do small population and rural which is why I use urban v rural terminology as its more applicable to modern society.

let's cut the BS. we have very little diversity in the thick of things. canada and the UK arguably have stronger divides than we do.

I don't see how rural vs urban is a modern term when you have this concept called the suburbs.

Quote:The system was set up to give the less populated states a way to compete with the most populated states. It kept Philly Boston and NYC from dominating early elections.

it was set up to keep virginia from dominating rhode island. back when it was created something like 2% of the population lived in the cities.

Quote:Does it blunt the potential impact of the big city vote, yes. But it protects the smaller less populated areas of the country better than a popular vote which would ignore these people without a thought. See Illinois and the Chicago vote for a perfect example

the EC is what is keeping politicians from visiting all the rural places that are currently being ignored. I don't understand why you refuse to accept this reality.

If you think democrats, as they generally are the favorite party in bigger cities, would focus on rural areas under a popular vote system and that rural and less populated areas would be better protected under a system where their vote would get completely canceled out by the vote of highly populated cities and their surrounding area then I don't know what else to say other than your mistaken

dude every single argument you make I keep shooting down. then to top it off you lack reading comprehension.

the argument is not so much dems visiting Idaho but republicans visiting Illinois, New York, and California which you can not deny would happen in a popular vote system.

you trash the popular vote system saying dems won't go to kansas or idaho but the EC system gives zero incentive for dems to do that. with the popular vote they have an incentive (even if it is still relatively small) because any votes they gain from those states actually go to the overall vote total.

Your definition of shooting down must be different than mine. If you think a republican is going to spend a significant amount of time in California, New York, or Illinois in a popular vote system I don't know what to tell you.

Speaking of reading comprehension, I did not trash the popular vote system, I said the electoral system was better for a country as geographically big and culturally diverse as ours.

you are simply so oblivious that you don't even realize how badly your points are being shot down. I had to call you out on the 21% thing because you ignored it just like you ignored the fact that the EC was created in an era where 2% of the population lived in the cities.

your argument is this: PV is bad because it gives a small incentive for the GOP to go to CA or NY but EC is acceptable even though it gives no incentive for the GOP to go to those same states.

your argument time and time again relies on hypocrisy that the PV shouldn't be enacted due to a problem that is also present in the EC.

minority votes don't matter in the EC but do matter in the PV. there is no way you can argue that the PV does anything but increase the incentives for politicians to do this.

if they won't go to the large rural populations of CA and NY in a PV system then they aren't doing this for any state and that right there makes your argument null.

(08-17-2016 02:14 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 02:06 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Democrats statically import immigrants into red districts like the recent PR movements into Floridas I-4 corridor turning it bluer than 4 years ago.

We need to get back to being selective about who comes here. Absolutely no third world countries. They have nothing in common with American values or culture.

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-17-2016 08:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  It is possible to win the electoral college with just 21% of the popular vote.The EC protects rural from city. it does not protect city from rural.


let's cut the BS. we have very little diversity in the thick of things. canada and the UK arguably have stronger divides than we do.

I don't see how rural vs urban is a modern term when you have this concept called the suburbs.


it was set up to keep virginia from dominating rhode island. back when it was created something like 2% of the population lived in the cities.


the EC is what is keeping politicians from visiting all the rural places that are currently being ignored. I don't understand why you refuse to accept this reality.

If you think democrats, as they generally are the favorite party in bigger cities, would focus on rural areas under a popular vote system and that rural and less populated areas would be better protected under a system where their vote would get completely canceled out by the vote of highly populated cities and their surrounding area then I don't know what else to say other than your mistaken

dude every single argument you make I keep shooting down. then to top it off you lack reading comprehension.

the argument is not so much dems visiting Idaho but republicans visiting Illinois, New York, and California which you can not deny would happen in a popular vote system.

you trash the popular vote system saying dems won't go to kansas or idaho but the EC system gives zero incentive for dems to do that. with the popular vote they have an incentive (even if it is still relatively small) because any votes they gain from those states actually go to the overall vote total.

Your definition of shooting down must be different than mine. If you think a republican is going to spend a significant amount of time in California, New York, or Illinois in a popular vote system I don't know what to tell you.

Speaking of reading comprehension, I did not trash the popular vote system, I said the electoral system was better for a country as geographically big and culturally diverse as ours.

you are simply so oblivious that you don't even realize how badly your points are being shot down. I had to call you out on the 21% thing because you ignored it just like you ignored the fact that the EC was created in an era where 2% of the population lived in the cities.

your argument is this: PV is bad because it gives a small incentive for the GOP to go to CA or NY but EC is acceptable even though it gives no incentive for the GOP to go to those same states.

your argument time and time again relies on hypocrisy that the PV shouldn't be enacted due to a problem that is also present in the EC.

minority votes don't matter in the EC but do matter in the PV. there is no way you can argue that the PV does anything but increase the incentives for politicians to do this.

if they won't go to the large rural populations of CA and NY in a PV system then they aren't doing this for any state and that right there makes your argument null.

I ignored the 21% thing because it's dumb and impossible.

There is no denying the electoral college weakens the votes of bigger population centers like NY, LA, etc. You think that is a bad thing, I think that is a good thing. I don't want our president to be elected because he ran up an insurmountable majority in big population centers that are a very small geographic portion of our nation no matter if he/she is a republican or a democrat.

I think it's important that the a president gain a mandate from throughout the nation. The electoral college forces that as no region of states has enough electoral vote to pick a president.

Nothing I say is going to convince you or keep you from insulting me so I'll concede the last word

(08-17-2016 08:56 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:41 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I love how you have no response to the 21% of the popular vote could win the electoral college.

I don't know what you want me to say to such a preposterous scenario.

why is it preposterous?

Despite what fairvote.org may tell you, such a scenario is practially impossible

the point is it is possible and that is the major problem with it.

there is a surprising amount of overlap with the states needed for it to be possible and the gop/dem split. the fact that it even exists shows the dems have a natural disadvantage. plus given changes in demographics dems are doing better in the large population states and population trends are continuing to shift to the large population states.

if the GOP makes gains in the midwest and the dems are able to turn Texas and georgia into swing states on top of maintaining what they have done in NC, VA & FL we will see this trend have a bigger impact in future elections.

22% is very unlikely, but 40% is not all that crazy.

(08-17-2016 09:18 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:57 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If you think democrats, as they generally are the favorite party in bigger cities, would focus on rural areas under a popular vote system and that rural and less populated areas would be better protected under a system where their vote would get completely canceled out by the vote of highly populated cities and their surrounding area then I don't know what else to say other than your mistaken

dude every single argument you make I keep shooting down. then to top it off you lack reading comprehension.

the argument is not so much dems visiting Idaho but republicans visiting Illinois, New York, and California which you can not deny would happen in a popular vote system.

you trash the popular vote system saying dems won't go to kansas or idaho but the EC system gives zero incentive for dems to do that. with the popular vote they have an incentive (even if it is still relatively small) because any votes they gain from those states actually go to the overall vote total.

Your definition of shooting down must be different than mine. If you think a republican is going to spend a significant amount of time in California, New York, or Illinois in a popular vote system I don't know what to tell you.

Speaking of reading comprehension, I did not trash the popular vote system, I said the electoral system was better for a country as geographically big and culturally diverse as ours.

you are simply so oblivious that you don't even realize how badly your points are being shot down. I had to call you out on the 21% thing because you ignored it just like you ignored the fact that the EC was created in an era where 2% of the population lived in the cities.

your argument is this: PV is bad because it gives a small incentive for the GOP to go to CA or NY but EC is acceptable even though it gives no incentive for the GOP to go to those same states.

your argument time and time again relies on hypocrisy that the PV shouldn't be enacted due to a problem that is also present in the EC.

minority votes don't matter in the EC but do matter in the PV. there is no way you can argue that the PV does anything but increase the incentives for politicians to do this.

if they won't go to the large rural populations of CA and NY in a PV system then they aren't doing this for any state and that right there makes your argument null.

I ignored the 21% thing because it's dumb and impossible.

There is no denying the electoral college weakens the votes of bigger population centers like NY, LA, etc. You think that is a bad thing, I think that is a good thing. I don't want our president to be elected because he ran up an insurmountable majority in big population centers that are a very small geographic portion of our nation no matter if he/she is a republican or a democrat.

I think it's important that the a president gain a mandate from throughout the nation. The electoral college forces that as no region of states has enough electoral vote to pick a president.

Nothing I say is going to convince you or keep you from insulting me so I'll concede the last word

I don't think you know what impossible means.

anyways your argument is basically you don't care if rural areas in NY or CA are neglected all while propping up a system because it prevents rural areas from being neglected even though they are.

you have no argument.

one region doesn't pick the POTUS??? do you even know what a swing state is at this point? the EC as is makes the only votes that matter occurring in a couple of swing states and that's it.

Trump is done for. Hillary is pulling away in the polls, and Trump is now starting to lose in Red States. Even Trump is coming in last place behind Gary Johnson and Jill Stein for the minority votes.