(08-17-2016 01:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 12:33 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 12:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 12:08 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The United States is a geographically large and culturally diverse nation. Always has been. The electoral college allows those that are not in the majority to have a more solid representation in electing our president. Under pure popular vote, the urban, big city favorite would just have to run up their totals in NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly etc. You can see this currently in the state of Illinois, CA, NY, and PA in their statewide elections as their big cities have drastically different cultures and needs than the rest of the state, yet the big city favorite almost always wins as the margins they produce are too difficult to overcome. The Electoral College tries to combat this on the state level in our only national election.

sorry but that is simply not the case. this is how ad spending per state looks like for a POTUS election:





campaigns focus most of their efforts on 7-10 states, usually the same states as last year. also if you are a conservative in New York or California, we all know your POTUS vote will mean absolutely nothing. if you are a liberal in the badlands or some historically red state, same exact thing.

so the exact opposite of your argument is true.

For the love of education, that map of the US has to be generated by some far left entity.

NPR. you know the outlet who has the most informed/educated viewership of all the major outlets.

have they ever heard of a heat map?

now you are just being stupid.

the format they used is a perfectly acceptable way to display data and is incredibly common.

(08-17-2016 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 12:33 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 12:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  sorry but that is simply not the case. this is how ad spending per state looks like for a POTUS election:





campaigns focus most of their efforts on 7-10 states, usually the same states as last year. also if you are a conservative in New York or California, we all know your POTUS vote will mean absolutely nothing. if you are a liberal in the badlands or some historically red state, same exact thing.

so the exact opposite of your argument is true.

For the love of education, that map of the US has to be generated by some far left entity.

NPR. you know the outlet who has the most informed/educated viewership of all the major outlets.

have they ever heard of a heat map?

now you are just being stupid.

the format they used is a perfectly acceptable way to display data and is incredibly common.

So the "educated and informed" viewership of NPR cant read a heatmap?

(08-17-2016 01:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 12:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 12:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  sorry but that is simply not the case. this is how ad spending per state looks like for a POTUS election:





campaigns focus most of their efforts on 7-10 states, usually the same states as last year. also if you are a conservative in New York or California, we all know your POTUS vote will mean absolutely nothing. if you are a liberal in the badlands or some historically red state, same exact thing.

so the exact opposite of your argument is true.

A conservative in New York's vote means "absolutely nothing" because of the huge run up in the margins the Democrats take advantage of in NYC. Without the electoral college that would be true nationally as the big cities would be all that matters and flyover country would be even more of an afterthought. This is not a new problem and was a concern back at the writing of the Constitution.

bold part ==> and in a direct popular vote their vote would actually count.

red part ==> and yet that happens much more severely thanks to the electoral college. campaigns focus the overwhelming majority of their efforts in a couple of battleground states and leave both big states like california and small states like wyoming alone.

if a candidate's base is the rural vote, he will focus in rural new york and rural california. the EC is what keeps him from doing that.

i swear the only people who defend the EC seem to be those most oblivious to reality.

Not really if the turnout for big cities increases and overwhelms the rural vote.

If California and New York are dying for attention in a presidential election they are perfectly capable of applying the Maine/Nebraska method in their delegation of their electoral votes. They would get plenty of attention if that were to happen

you think conservative and liberal strongholds would make it easier for the minority party to gain EC votes?

after Obama four states tried to implement the congressional district method (which is what it's called). it was attempted by conservatives and was done with the intention of further trying to suppress the popular vote. In virginia where it came the closest to happening obama would have won only 4/15 EC votes despite winning the popular vote in the state.

the EC tends to have larger margins than the popular vote. so not even your crazy "rural vote being overwhelmed" talking point has merit to it.

States not being winner take all does help the minority party gain electoral votes. It would lead to 3rd parties winning electoral votes.

Splitting the electoral college vote by district forces you to win not by running up majorities in your strongholds but by winning votes in a wide geographic area. Look at the current congressional map. A lot more red than blue. A president of a country this big should have wide geographic support which the electoral college forces

Every state used to be a swing state before rampant immigration from third world countries.

Democrats statically import immigrants into red districts like the recent PR movements into Floridas I-4 corridor turning it bluer than 4 years ago.

(08-17-2016 01:52 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 12:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  A conservative in New York's vote means "absolutely nothing" because of the huge run up in the margins the Democrats take advantage of in NYC. Without the electoral college that would be true nationally as the big cities would be all that matters and flyover country would be even more of an afterthought. This is not a new problem and was a concern back at the writing of the Constitution.

bold part ==> and in a direct popular vote their vote would actually count.

red part ==> and yet that happens much more severely thanks to the electoral college. campaigns focus the overwhelming majority of their efforts in a couple of battleground states and leave both big states like california and small states like wyoming alone.

if a candidate's base is the rural vote, he will focus in rural new york and rural california. the EC is what keeps him from doing that.

i swear the only people who defend the EC seem to be those most oblivious to reality.

Not really if the turnout for big cities increases and overwhelms the rural vote.

If California and New York are dying for attention in a presidential election they are perfectly capable of applying the Maine/Nebraska method in their delegation of their electoral votes. They would get plenty of attention if that were to happen

you think conservative and liberal strongholds would make it easier for the minority party to gain EC votes?

after Obama four states tried to implement the congressional district method (which is what it's called). it was attempted by conservatives and was done with the intention of further trying to suppress the popular vote. In virginia where it came the closest to happening obama would have won only 4/15 EC votes despite winning the popular vote in the state.

the EC tends to have larger margins than the popular vote. so not even your crazy "rural vote being overwhelmed" talking point has merit to it.

States not being winner take all does help the minority party gain electoral votes. It would lead to 3rd parties winning electoral votes.

Splitting the electoral college vote by district forces you to win not by running up majorities in your strongholds but by winning votes in a wide geographic area. Look at the current congressional map. A lot more red than blue. A president of a country this big should have wide geographic support which the electoral college forces

bold part ==> it also means 21% of the country can overrule the wishes of the other 89%.

rest of it ==> you keep pulling the geography talking point but you can't even say why geography should be relevant.

why is it acceptable for the rural to suppress the willpower of the densely populated but it is not acceptable for the densely populated to suppress the willpower of the rural?

why is it acceptable that one system is acceptable even though it suppresses the rural vote whereas the other system does the exact same thing, arguably even worse, and is unacceptable for that exact reason?

what is a legitimate argument to say just because someone is rural, their vote should matter more than someone elses just because they live in a city.

all of though omits two things. one the concept of suburbs which is where an election is won in both systems and break pretty even on political lines. two is that the EC was about state vs state not city vs rural.

(08-17-2016 01:46 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 12:33 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  For the love of education, that map of the US has to be generated by some far left entity.

NPR. you know the outlet who has the most informed/educated viewership of all the major outlets.

have they ever heard of a heat map?

now you are just being stupid.

the format they used is a perfectly acceptable way to display data and is incredibly common.

So the "educated and informed" viewership of NPR cant read a heatmap?

they can read and understand more than just a heat map. apparently this is a problem for you.

(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.

(08-17-2016 02:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:52 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  bold part ==> and in a direct popular vote their vote would actually count.

red part ==> and yet that happens much more severely thanks to the electoral college. campaigns focus the overwhelming majority of their efforts in a couple of battleground states and leave both big states like california and small states like wyoming alone.

if a candidate's base is the rural vote, he will focus in rural new york and rural california. the EC is what keeps him from doing that.

i swear the only people who defend the EC seem to be those most oblivious to reality.

Not really if the turnout for big cities increases and overwhelms the rural vote.

If California and New York are dying for attention in a presidential election they are perfectly capable of applying the Maine/Nebraska method in their delegation of their electoral votes. They would get plenty of attention if that were to happen

you think conservative and liberal strongholds would make it easier for the minority party to gain EC votes? :wingedeagle:

after Obama four states tried to implement the congressional district method (which is what it's called). it was attempted by conservatives and was done with the intention of further trying to suppress the popular vote. In virginia where it came the closest to happening obama would have won only 4/15 EC votes despite winning the popular vote in the state.

the EC tends to have larger margins than the popular vote. so not even your crazy "rural vote being overwhelmed" talking point has merit to it.

States not being winner take all does help the minority party gain electoral votes. It would lead to 3rd parties winning electoral votes.

Splitting the electoral college vote by district forces you to win not by running up majorities in your strongholds but by winning votes in a wide geographic area. Look at the current congressional map. A lot more red than blue. A president of a country this big should have wide geographic support which the electoral college forces

bold part ==> it also means 21% of the country can overrule the wishes of the other 89%.

rest of it ==> you keep pulling the geography talking point but you can't even say why geography should be relevant.

why is it acceptable for the rural to suppress the willpower of the densely populated but it is not acceptable for the densely populated to suppress the willpower of the rural?

why is it acceptable that one system is acceptable even though it suppresses the rural vote whereas the other system does the exact same thing, arguably even worse, and is unacceptable for that exact reason?

what is a legitimate argument to say just because someone is rural, their vote should matter more than someone elses just because they live in a city.

all of though omits two things. one the concept of suburbs which is where an election is won in both systems and break pretty even on political lines. two is that the EC was about state vs state not city vs rural.

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.

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.

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. 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

Also thank you for avoiding insults in your response this time

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.

(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

(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.

I love how you have no response to the 21% of the popular vote could win the electoral college.

(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.

What response is needed?

Let's start up the constitutional convention and change it.

Good luck. You are tilting at windmills.

(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.

(08-17-2016 08:39 PM)rath v2.0 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.

What response is needed?

Let's start up the constitutional convention and change it.

Good luck. You are tilting at windmills.

you are titling at windmills if you don't see the problem with a system that can give someone a victory with just 21% of the vote.

(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?

(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.

(08-17-2016 08:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:39 PM)rath v2.0 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.

What response is needed?

Let's start up the constitutional convention and change it.

Good luck. You are tilting at windmills.

you are titling at windmills if you don't see the problem with a system that can give someone a victory with just 21% of the vote.

Ok moonbeam. Fix it how you want it. Just pass an amendment by either Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called by and passed by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

I won't hold my breath. You shouldn't either. Better off arguing why water is wet.

(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