(08-16-2016 10:15 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Do any of you actually know how Trump's finances and businesses look? Do you think he's just holding his taxes because he has too much money or something? He has cheated so many people out of their livelihoods and made his fortune at the expense of others, literally.

TEH FEAR

(08-16-2016 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 04:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The electoral college is a great thing.

And, that's me and I am most certainly voting for U.S. jobs and that is a vote for Trump.

(08-16-2016 04:29 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm fine with it. Unfortunately, in this election, it means that Clinton will win this with little effort or a press conference.

For me personally, I don't see how one can justify a system that can give someone the election with just 23% of the popular vote, inflates voting power of some citizens by 400%, reduces the election to votes mattering in just a few states and was designed back when concepts like "popular sovereignty" and "we are a single nation" hadn't been adopted.

Well, the reason is hidden in our name, the United States. Tricky! I know!

(08-16-2016 10:15 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Do any of you actually know how Trump's finances and businesses look? Do you think he's just holding his taxes because he has too much money or something? He has cheated so many people out of their livelihoods and made his fortune at the expense of others, literally.

Well, that wouldn't show up on a tax return...

Bless your heart!

(08-16-2016 10:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 04:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The electoral college is a great thing.

And, that's me and I am most certainly voting for U.S. jobs and that is a vote for Trump.

(08-16-2016 04:29 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm fine with it. Unfortunately, in this election, it means that Clinton will win this with little effort or a press conference.

For me personally, I don't see how one can justify a system that can give someone the election with just 23% of the popular vote, inflates voting power of some citizens by 400%, reduces the election to votes mattering in just a few states and was designed back when concepts like "popular sovereignty" and "we are a single nation" hadn't been adopted.

Well, the reason is hidden in our name, the United States. Tricky! I know!

and you are a fool if you think we still think of PA & Ohio as separate countries.

(08-16-2016 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 04:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The electoral college is a great thing.

And, that's me and I am most certainly voting for U.S. jobs and that is a vote for Trump.

(08-16-2016 04:29 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm fine with it. Unfortunately, in this election, it means that Clinton will win this with little effort or a press conference.

For me personally, I don't see how one can justify a system that can give someone the election with just 23% of the popular vote, inflates voting power of some citizens by 400%, reduces the election to votes mattering in just a few states and was designed back when concepts like "popular sovereignty" and "we are a single nation" hadn't been adopted.

Well, the reason is hidden in our name, the United States. Tricky! I know!

and you are a fool if you think we still think of PA & Ohio as separate countries.

Well, you are a fool if you ever thought people did. But, I guess we answered that didn't we?

(08-16-2016 08:37 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  fsquid is absolutely petrified that Hillary is going to lose. Maybe not badly, but she's losing.

me? no I think they are both ****. I also believe that neither one of them would screw up the country because they won't get much through Congress.

(08-16-2016 05:09 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 04:40 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 04:38 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  It cracks me up to read the Libs on this board trashing Trump while they are supporting the most corrupt person to ever run for President.

they are both corrupt New York Democrats who can't relate to middle and lower class America. What's the point?

so whats corrupt about Trump?

probably the wrong word to use. I take it back.

(08-17-2016 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 04:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The electoral college is a great thing.

And, that's me and I am most certainly voting for U.S. jobs and that is a vote for Trump.

(08-16-2016 04:29 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm fine with it. Unfortunately, in this election, it means that Clinton will win this with little effort or a press conference.

For me personally, I don't see how one can justify a system that can give someone the election with just 23% of the popular vote, inflates voting power of some citizens by 400%, reduces the election to votes mattering in just a few states and was designed back when concepts like "popular sovereignty" and "we are a single nation" hadn't been adopted.

Well, the reason is hidden in our name, the United States. Tricky! I know!

and you are a fool if you think we still think of PA & Ohio as separate countries.

Well, you are a fool if you ever thought people did. But, I guess we answered that didn't we?

dude, you have a logical fallacy right here. "we are the united states...states" implying we are not a single entity. now you are arguing PA and OH were never seen as that different from each other

back when the constitution was being written, yeah people did think of the US as nothing but a very lose confederation. jefferson referred to virginia as "his country."

(08-17-2016 09:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  For me personally, I don't see how one can justify a system that can give someone the election with just 23% of the popular vote, inflates voting power of some citizens by 400%, reduces the election to votes mattering in just a few states and was designed back when concepts like "popular sovereignty" and "we are a single nation" hadn't been adopted.

Well, the reason is hidden in our name, the United States. Tricky! I know!

and you are a fool if you think we still think of PA & Ohio as separate countries.

Well, you are a fool if you ever thought people did. But, I guess we answered that didn't we?

dude, you have a logical fallacy right here. "we are the united states...states" implying we are not a single entity. now you are arguing PA and OH were never seen as that different from each other

back when the constitution was being written, yeah people did think of the US as nothing but a very lose confederation. jefferson referred to virginia as "his country."

I think you need to think harder about what a "logical fallacy" is.

I can already tell that going into any detail is a total waste of time.

You're wrong, and I'd wager you even know it, but you'd never come out of your political stance of disliking the electoral college long enough to admit it.

(08-17-2016 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Well, the reason is hidden in our name, the United States. Tricky! I know!

and you are a fool if you think we still think of PA & Ohio as separate countries.

Well, you are a fool if you ever thought people did. But, I guess we answered that didn't we?

dude, you have a logical fallacy right here. "we are the united states...states" implying we are not a single entity. now you are arguing PA and OH were never seen as that different from each other

back when the constitution was being written, yeah people did think of the US as nothing but a very lose confederation. jefferson referred to virginia as "his country."

I think you need to think harder about what a "logical fallacy" is.

I can already tell that going into any detail is a total waste of time.

You're wrong, and I'd wager you even know it, but you'd never come out of your political stance of disliking the electoral college long enough to admit it.

you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

(08-17-2016 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and you are a fool if you think we still think of PA & Ohio as separate countries.

Well, you are a fool if you ever thought people did. But, I guess we answered that didn't we?

dude, you have a logical fallacy right here. "we are the united states...states" implying we are not a single entity. now you are arguing PA and OH were never seen as that different from each other

back when the constitution was being written, yeah people did think of the US as nothing but a very lose confederation. jefferson referred to virginia as "his country."

I think you need to think harder about what a "logical fallacy" is.

I can already tell that going into any detail is a total waste of time.

You're wrong, and I'd wager you even know it, but you'd never come out of your political stance of disliking the electoral college long enough to admit it.

you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

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.

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

(08-17-2016 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Well, you are a fool if you ever thought people did. But, I guess we answered that didn't we?

dude, you have a logical fallacy right here. "we are the united states...states" implying we are not a single entity. now you are arguing PA and OH were never seen as that different from each other

back when the constitution was being written, yeah people did think of the US as nothing but a very lose confederation. jefferson referred to virginia as "his country."

I think you need to think harder about what a "logical fallacy" is.

I can already tell that going into any detail is a total waste of time.

You're wrong, and I'd wager you even know it, but you'd never come out of your political stance of disliking the electoral college long enough to admit it.

you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

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.

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

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

(08-17-2016 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dude, you have a logical fallacy right here. "we are the united states...states" implying we are not a single entity. now you are arguing PA and OH were never seen as that different from each other

back when the constitution was being written, yeah people did think of the US as nothing but a very lose confederation. jefferson referred to virginia as "his country."

I think you need to think harder about what a "logical fallacy" is.

I can already tell that going into any detail is a total waste of time.

You're wrong, and I'd wager you even know it, but you'd never come out of your political stance of disliking the electoral college long enough to admit it.

you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

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.

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

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

(08-17-2016 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dude, you have a logical fallacy right here. "we are the united states...states" implying we are not a single entity. now you are arguing PA and OH were never seen as that different from each other

back when the constitution was being written, yeah people did think of the US as nothing but a very lose confederation. jefferson referred to virginia as "his country."

I think you need to think harder about what a "logical fallacy" is.

I can already tell that going into any detail is a total waste of time.

You're wrong, and I'd wager you even know it, but you'd never come out of your political stance of disliking the electoral college long enough to admit it.

you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

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.

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.

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

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

(08-17-2016 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  dude, you have a logical fallacy right here. "we are the united states...states" implying we are not a single entity. now you are arguing PA and OH were never seen as that different from each other

back when the constitution was being written, yeah people did think of the US as nothing but a very lose confederation. jefferson referred to virginia as "his country."

I think you need to think harder about what a "logical fallacy" is.

I can already tell that going into any detail is a total waste of time.

You're wrong, and I'd wager you even know it, but you'd never come out of your political stance of disliking the electoral college long enough to admit it.

you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

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.

Obama won 12 out of 13 of those states in 2012 and all 13 in 2008. Crooked Hillary is on defense.

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

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

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

(08-17-2016 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think you need to think harder about what a "logical fallacy" is.

I can already tell that going into any detail is a total waste of time.

You're wrong, and I'd wager you even know it, but you'd never come out of your political stance of disliking the electoral college long enough to admit it.

you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

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.

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.

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

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

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

(08-17-2016 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think you need to think harder about what a "logical fallacy" is.

I can already tell that going into any detail is a total waste of time.

You're wrong, and I'd wager you even know it, but you'd never come out of your political stance of disliking the electoral college long enough to admit it.

you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

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.

(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:  

(08-17-2016 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

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?

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

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

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

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

(08-17-2016 12:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are resorting to redneck logic trying to defend this.

seriously canadian provinces have significantly more autonomy and cultural differences with each other and aren't called states.

you can't give one good reason for the EC only this dumb point about the name we use.

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.

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

(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:  

(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.

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.