Its Soccer v. Baseball

To win the UEFA Champions League, You have to get the most goals in 2 games. So if you lose game 1 5 to 0, you are screwed.

To win the World Series, You have to win the most games. If you have a bad game its ok.

The popular vote is UEFA where you can run up the score (votes) in game 1 (California) and play it safe in game 2 (the other 95% of America).

The World Series is the EC. It takes more than 1 good game (State) to win. You have to win multiple games (States). Winning 1 Game (State) is great but that does not seal the deal.

So the 51% of Americans who voted for a POTUS candidate were less diverse than the 49% who voted for a different candidate? Are you sure about that?

Because it would seem the very thing you value just got seriously undermined.

(11-11-2016 03:52 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 03:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  49R - But as you know, that's impossible, as well more than 1/4th the states have incentive to keep the system as is.
Kronke,
Not rightful, at all. It's just what the constitution says. But neither you, nor anyone, can come up with a logical argument that justifies what it says.

Mpls, I know you millineals are p.o'd about this election and want to blame everyone in sight, but take a step away from the issues of the day and try to understand that the greatest country ever conceived by mankind was built upon this document. It is not something that should be trifled with.

I suggest you try to view where we've come from with an eye toward what this country looked like a short 240 years ago. Do a little research on the standard of living when this document was created to where we are now; then maybe you might want to show a little deference towards it.

good post.

NO historical perspective or understanding seems the flavor of the day for many.

Must be that instant gratification/ I want it all and I want it NOW, mentality.

And then what do you think about the Super Bowl???? That's just one game.

(11-11-2016 04:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So the 51% of Americans who voted for a POTUS candidate were less diverse than the 49% who voted for a different candidate? Are you sure about that?

Because it would seem the very thing you value just got seriously undermined.

Diverse it what way?
Looking at the raw vote geographically, the Trump coalition is way more diverse than the Clintion coalition?

Look at this map if you need proof
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/the-dem...mandering/

(11-11-2016 03:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Bull,

So your solution is to make it so that 49% of people can instantly and almost without process deny rights to 51% of people based on a single vote and no process beyond that ???

See before we need to go down this rabbit hole you and I need to come to a consensus on what constitutes a "right".

As I see it 49% of people can not deny you a right, they might stop you from getting a candidate you like. They might shut down a government program. They might even rescind a law you do like.

But none of those things are of and by themselves attacks on rights.

If you want to have this conversation, seriously, then we need to be serious about the rhetoric.

FIU #55,

I'm not a millennial. But thanks! I love being accused of being young, lol!

So ... doesn't your entire post hinge on the assumption that the constitution is what caused the US to be great, and not that the US has been great in spite of the constitution??? How do you justify such an assumption??

solo,

So back to land area being most important.

If you so greatly value ("diversity" of) land areas, why not simply allocate votes based on land area?



AFAIK, every American gets the same vote. And it would be very un-American to claim that someone in North Carolina has less of a vote than someone in Wyoming!

(11-11-2016 03:47 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'd like to ditch it just because it kinda makes the elections boil down to a few select states and that's it. The GOP doesn't even try in places like California and New York, and the Dems don't even try in Texas etc. A lot of the most populated states in the union essentially mean nothing to deciding the President because it's winner takes all and it's viewed as a lost cause to even try to win hearts and minds in certain states. Either go by the popular vote or do proportional delegation of the electoral votes.

But honestly if we ditched it that practice would be amplified. THe major cities would get attention and that's about it.

I think the way it's set up is fine because State can, if they choose, proportion their delegates however they want. If your big state is not getting any attention to what Maine and Nebraska do.

It would be better for the country as a whole if they would, but it wouldn't be in the best interest of the controlling party of those states. Cali wouldn't want to allow the GOP to get a portion of their delegates same as Texas wouldn't want the Dems to get a portion of theirs.

(11-11-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

So back to land area being most important.

If you so greatly value ("diversity" of) land areas, why not simply allocate votes based on land area?



AFAIK, every American gets the same vote. And it would be very un-American to claim that someone in North Carolina has less of a vote than someone in Wyoming!

No one has less of a vote than anyone else. The culture of NC is very different than the culture of Wyoming. The vote to determine who Wyoming elects for president is just as important as the vote to determine who NC elects for president.

Allocating votes simply on land mass would be dumb. This is why NC gets more votes and representation than Wyoming. But to eliminate Wyoming from the process completely, as you are advocating, would be wrong.

(11-11-2016 04:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 03:47 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'd like to ditch it just because it kinda makes the elections boil down to a few select states and that's it. The GOP doesn't even try in places like California and New York, and the Dems don't even try in Texas etc. A lot of the most populated states in the union essentially mean nothing to deciding the President because it's winner takes all and it's viewed as a lost cause to even try to win hearts and minds in certain states. Either go by the popular vote or do proportional delegation of the electoral votes.

But honestly if we ditched it that practice would be amplified. THe major cities would get attention and that's about it.

I think the way it's set up is fine because State can, if they choose, proportion their delegates however they want. If your big state is not getting any attention to what Maine and Nebraska do.

It would be better for the country as a whole if they would, but it wouldn't be in the best interest of the controlling party of those states. Cali wouldn't want to allow the GOP to get a portion of their delegates same as Texas wouldn't want the Dems to get a portion of theirs.

Excellent point!

If California or NY want attention so bad and that is truly what this is about then split your electoral vote.

(11-11-2016 04:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So the 51% of Americans who voted for a POTUS candidate were less diverse than the 49% who voted for a different candidate? Are you sure about that?

Because it would seem the very thing you value just got seriously undermined.

Go look at a map.

Yes, indisputable the people in the varying 30 states will be more "diverse" than those in the other 20. Especially when you look at the concentrations of where those 20 are.= Northeast, Left coast and 3-4 others.

That's it.

(11-11-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

So back to land area being most important.

If you so greatly value ("diversity" of) land areas, why not simply allocate votes based on land area?



AFAIK, every American gets the same vote. And it would be very un-American to claim that someone in North Carolina has less of a vote than someone in Wyoming!

No one has less of a vote than anyone else. The culture of NC is very different than the culture of Wyoming. The vote to determine who Wyoming elects for president is just as important as the vote to determine who NC elects for president.

Allocating votes simply on land mass would be dumb. This is why NC gets more votes and representation than Wyoming. But to eliminate Wyoming from the process completely, as you are advocating, would be wrong.

I agree, but a Republican in California currently has no voice in the presidential election, and really never will as long as it remains the way it is. Same thing for a Dem in Texas. Essentially if you are in a state that isn't a swing state and you are in the minority party it's a waste of time for you to even vote for President. I don't think that's very healthy for those states or the country as a whole, but I do recognize that if you went straight popular vote you'd pretty much ignore rural America completely.

(11-11-2016 04:11 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 03:47 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'd like to ditch it just because it kinda makes the elections boil down to a few select states and that's it. The GOP doesn't even try in places like California and New York, and the Dems don't even try in Texas etc. A lot of the most populated states in the union essentially mean nothing to deciding the President because it's winner takes all and it's viewed as a lost cause to even try to win hearts and minds in certain states. Either go by the popular vote or do proportional delegation of the electoral votes.

But honestly if we ditched it that practice would be amplified. THe major cities would get attention and that's about it.

I think the way it's set up is fine because State can, if they choose, proportion their delegates however they want. If your big state is not getting any attention to what Maine and Nebraska do.

It would be better for the country as a whole if they would, but it wouldn't be in the best interest of the controlling party of those states. Cali wouldn't want to allow the GOP to get a portion of their delegates same as Texas wouldn't want the Dems to get a portion of theirs.

Excellent point!

If California or NY want attention so bad and that is truly what this is about then split your electoral vote.

I think every state should do it, would make candidates actually have to try to win nationwide instead of trying to win in like 5-10 states. I happen to live in one of those states that now actually matters, but it would be hard for me to even care about voting if I lived in one of the states that will always vote one way.

(11-11-2016 04:16 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

So back to land area being most important.

If you so greatly value ("diversity" of) land areas, why not simply allocate votes based on land area?



AFAIK, every American gets the same vote. And it would be very un-American to claim that someone in North Carolina has less of a vote than someone in Wyoming!

No one has less of a vote than anyone else. The culture of NC is very different than the culture of Wyoming. The vote to determine who Wyoming elects for president is just as important as the vote to determine who NC elects for president.

Allocating votes simply on land mass would be dumb. This is why NC gets more votes and representation than Wyoming. But to eliminate Wyoming from the process completely, as you are advocating, would be wrong.

I agree, but a Republican in California currently has no voice in the presidential election, and really never will as long as it remains the way it is. Same thing for a Dem in Texas. Essentially if you are in a state that isn't a swing state and you are in the minority party it's a waste of time for you to even vote for President. I don't think that's very healthy for those states or the country as a whole, but I do recognize that if you went straight popular vote you'd pretty much ignore rural America completely.

Why should someone living in a rural area get an extra vote. Especially since many minorities were banned from holding land (whites were given all the homesteads) and didn't get access to credit to maintain their farms.

(11-11-2016 04:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  FIU #55,
I'm not a millennial. But thanks! I love being accused of being young, lol!
So ... doesn't your entire post hinge on the assumption that the constitution is what caused the US to be great, and not that the US has been great in spite of the constitution??? How do you justify such an assumption??

I anticipated a form of that question and the answer is, forms of democracy have been around since long before Plato and Socrates wrote about them some 2500 years ago. So for as long as man has been organizing to 'get things done', they've tried every color of government in the spectrum. The founders of this country knew they had a rare opportunity here so they took the best of every type of government they could find and wrote it up into our Constitution. The document includes checks and balances as well as ways to correct itself should times change and Articles become obsolete.

Please provide your critique of it as clearly and succinctly or let's move on to another subject (lord knows there are plenty of them out there right now).

(11-11-2016 04:16 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

So back to land area being most important.

If you so greatly value ("diversity" of) land areas, why not simply allocate votes based on land area?



AFAIK, every American gets the same vote. And it would be very un-American to claim that someone in North Carolina has less of a vote than someone in Wyoming!

No one has less of a vote than anyone else. The culture of NC is very different than the culture of Wyoming. The vote to determine who Wyoming elects for president is just as important as the vote to determine who NC elects for president.

Allocating votes simply on land mass would be dumb. This is why NC gets more votes and representation than Wyoming. But to eliminate Wyoming from the process completely, as you are advocating, would be wrong.

I agree, but a Republican in California currently has no voice in the presidential election, and really never will as long as it remains the way it is. Same thing for a Dem in Texas. Essentially if you are in a state that isn't a swing state and you are in the minority party it's a waste of time for you to even vote for President. I don't think that's very healthy for those states or the country as a whole, but I do recognize that if you went straight popular vote you'd pretty much ignore rural America completely.

How would going popular vote help the Republican in California or the Dem in Texas? Would that change make the state more liberal/conservative?

I agree with you it is not very healthy. That is why I am a BIG ADVOCATE of splitting states electoral votes. Look at Maine in 2016 and Nebraska in 2008. Both parties considered those huge wins. That should be happening nationwide.

(11-11-2016 04:20 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:16 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

So back to land area being most important.

If you so greatly value ("diversity" of) land areas, why not simply allocate votes based on land area?



AFAIK, every American gets the same vote. And it would be very un-American to claim that someone in North Carolina has less of a vote than someone in Wyoming!

No one has less of a vote than anyone else. The culture of NC is very different than the culture of Wyoming. The vote to determine who Wyoming elects for president is just as important as the vote to determine who NC elects for president.

Allocating votes simply on land mass would be dumb. This is why NC gets more votes and representation than Wyoming. But to eliminate Wyoming from the process completely, as you are advocating, would be wrong.

I agree, but a Republican in California currently has no voice in the presidential election, and really never will as long as it remains the way it is. Same thing for a Dem in Texas. Essentially if you are in a state that isn't a swing state and you are in the minority party it's a waste of time for you to even vote for President. I don't think that's very healthy for those states or the country as a whole, but I do recognize that if you went straight popular vote you'd pretty much ignore rural America completely.

Why should someone living in a rural area get an extra vote. Especially since many minorities were banned from holding land (whites were given all the homesteads) and didn't get access to credit to maintain their farms.

We don't. We get one vote to determine which way our state will go. Founders wanted the bulk of power to lay with the state not the federal. Individuals have more influence with local leaders and can determine how they wish their state to function. If you don't like the way your state is run you are fee to move to a more suitable one.

(11-11-2016 04:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:16 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

So back to land area being most important.

If you so greatly value ("diversity" of) land areas, why not simply allocate votes based on land area?



AFAIK, every American gets the same vote. And it would be very un-American to claim that someone in North Carolina has less of a vote than someone in Wyoming!

No one has less of a vote than anyone else. The culture of NC is very different than the culture of Wyoming. The vote to determine who Wyoming elects for president is just as important as the vote to determine who NC elects for president.

Allocating votes simply on land mass would be dumb. This is why NC gets more votes and representation than Wyoming. But to eliminate Wyoming from the process completely, as you are advocating, would be wrong.

I agree, but a Republican in California currently has no voice in the presidential election, and really never will as long as it remains the way it is. Same thing for a Dem in Texas. Essentially if you are in a state that isn't a swing state and you are in the minority party it's a waste of time for you to even vote for President. I don't think that's very healthy for those states or the country as a whole, but I do recognize that if you went straight popular vote you'd pretty much ignore rural America completely.

How would going popular vote help the Republican in California or the Dem in Texas? Would that change make the state more liberal/conservative?

I agree with you it is not very healthy. That is why I am a BIG ADVOCATE of splitting states electoral votes. Look at Maine in 2016 and Nebraska in 2008. Both parties considered those huge wins. That should be happening nationwide.

Don't need to add anything to this I agree I think it would be better for the entire country (forget which party you support) if electoral votes were split. I also think it would help increase voter participation overall, which again is something that would be good for everyone.

(11-11-2016 04:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  We don't. We get one vote to determine which way our state will go. Founders wanted the bulk of power to lay with the state not the federal. Individuals have more influence with local leaders and can determine how they wish their state to function. If you don't like the way your state is run you are fee to move to a more suitable one.

Can you just imagine what this country would look like if we changed it into one monolithic, centrally controlled, behemoth. Yeah, 330 million people ruled by popular vote run out of Washington. You think corruption is bad now, imagine the fight for control over that sucker.