(07-21-2020 11:37 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I said Jorgensen.
My decision model for some time has been libertarian if I can, Trump if I must, meaning that if Trump needs me I'll vote for him. Mainly I'm just voting against the democrats. But thinking about it, if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he's toast nationally.
So I'm voting Jorgensen (even though her VP running mate is a nut case), hoping for Trump, but preparing to be disappointed. The only real question for me is will I be leave the country disappointed or stay here and fight disappointed.

I respect your opinion, but if you’re voting against the Dems then the logical choice is voting for Trump. It’s either A or B.
Why not?

If it were a national popular vote, I would vote for Trump. But it's not, it's state by state. And Trump should win Texas without me, easily. If he doesn't, then he is toast nationally. So my vote really, really doesn't matter.

(07-22-2020 05:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 11:37 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I said Jorgensen.
My decision model for some time has been libertarian if I can, Trump if I must, meaning that if Trump needs me I'll vote for him. Mainly I'm just voting against the democrats. But thinking about it, if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he's toast nationally.
So I'm voting Jorgensen (even though her VP running mate is a nut case), hoping for Trump, but preparing to be disappointed. The only real question for me is will I be leave the country disappointed or stay here and fight disappointed.

I respect your opinion, but if you’re voting against the Dems then the logical choice is voting for Trump. It’s either A or B.
Why not?

If it were a national popular vote, I would vote for Trump. But it's not, it's state by state. And Trump should win Texas without me, easily. If he doesn't, then he is toast nationally. So my vote really, really doesn't matter.

I get it, but why take the chance if TEXAS turns blue then it's game over.

(07-22-2020 08:19 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 05:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 11:37 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I said Jorgensen.
My decision model for some time has been libertarian if I can, Trump if I must, meaning that if Trump needs me I'll vote for him. Mainly I'm just voting against the democrats. But thinking about it, if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he's toast nationally.
So I'm voting Jorgensen (even though her VP running mate is a nut case), hoping for Trump, but preparing to be disappointed. The only real question for me is will I be leave the country disappointed or stay here and fight disappointed.

I respect your opinion, but if you’re voting against the Dems then the logical choice is voting for Trump. It’s either A or B.
Why not?

If it were a national popular vote, I would vote for Trump. But it's not, it's state by state. And Trump should win Texas without me, easily. If he doesn't, then he is toast nationally. So my vote really, really doesn't matter.

I get it, but why take the chance if TEXAS turns blue then it's game over.

yep....trusting polls is akin to trusting a politician....especially with the latest influx from cali and the illegals....

(07-22-2020 05:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 11:37 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I said Jorgensen.
My decision model for some time has been libertarian if I can, Trump if I must, meaning that if Trump needs me I'll vote for him. Mainly I'm just voting against the democrats. But thinking about it, if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he's toast nationally.
So I'm voting Jorgensen (even though her VP running mate is a nut case), hoping for Trump, but preparing to be disappointed. The only real question for me is will I be leave the country disappointed or stay here and fight disappointed.

I respect your opinion, but if you’re voting against the Dems then the logical choice is voting for Trump. It’s either A or B.
Why not?

If it were a national popular vote, I would vote for Trump. But it's not, it's state by state. And Trump should win Texas without me, easily. If he doesn't, then he is toast nationally. So my vote really, really doesn't matter.

To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Additionally, winning the popular vote would give Trump much more of a "mandate" from the people in support of his agenda. It takes away the "most people don't want" argument from the dems.

So, IMO, every vote may not decide the election, but every vote does matter.

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 05:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 11:37 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I said Jorgensen.
My decision model for some time has been libertarian if I can, Trump if I must, meaning that if Trump needs me I'll vote for him. Mainly I'm just voting against the democrats. But thinking about it, if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he's toast nationally.
So I'm voting Jorgensen (even though her VP running mate is a nut case), hoping for Trump, but preparing to be disappointed. The only real question for me is will I be leave the country disappointed or stay here and fight disappointed.

I respect your opinion, but if you’re voting against the Dems then the logical choice is voting for Trump. It’s either A or B.
Why not?

If it were a national popular vote, I would vote for Trump. But it's not, it's state by state. And Trump should win Texas without me, easily. If he doesn't, then he is toast nationally. So my vote really, really doesn't matter.

To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Additionally, winning the popular vote would give Trump much more of a "mandate" from the people in support of his agenda. It takes away the "most people don't want" argument from the dems.

So, IMO, every vote may not decide the election, but every vote does matter.

Smaller states are not going to vote away their power. It would require a constitutional amendment and there is zero chance of that happening.

It would make sense to modernize the way votes are allocated. Why not introduce a proportional threshold for % of victory by state?

(07-22-2020 09:13 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 05:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 11:37 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I said Jorgensen.
My decision model for some time has been libertarian if I can, Trump if I must, meaning that if Trump needs me I'll vote for him. Mainly I'm just voting against the democrats. But thinking about it, if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he's toast nationally.
So I'm voting Jorgensen (even though her VP running mate is a nut case), hoping for Trump, but preparing to be disappointed. The only real question for me is will I be leave the country disappointed or stay here and fight disappointed.

I respect your opinion, but if you’re voting against the Dems then the logical choice is voting for Trump. It’s either A or B.
Why not?

If it were a national popular vote, I would vote for Trump. But it's not, it's state by state. And Trump should win Texas without me, easily. If he doesn't, then he is toast nationally. So my vote really, really doesn't matter.

To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Additionally, winning the popular vote would give Trump much more of a "mandate" from the people in support of his agenda. It takes away the "most people don't want" argument from the dems.

So, IMO, every vote may not decide the election, but every vote does matter.

Smaller states are not going to vote away their power. It would require a constitutional amendment and there is zero chance of that happening.

It would make sense to modernize the way votes are allocated. Why not introduce a proportional threshold for % of victory by state?

b/c urban centers overwhelm...

(07-22-2020 09:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:13 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 05:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 11:37 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  I respect your opinion, but if you’re voting against the Dems then the logical choice is voting for Trump. It’s either A or B.
Why not?

If it were a national popular vote, I would vote for Trump. But it's not, it's state by state. And Trump should win Texas without me, easily. If he doesn't, then he is toast nationally. So my vote really, really doesn't matter.

To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Additionally, winning the popular vote would give Trump much more of a "mandate" from the people in support of his agenda. It takes away the "most people don't want" argument from the dems.

So, IMO, every vote may not decide the election, but every vote does matter.

Smaller states are not going to vote away their power. It would require a constitutional amendment and there is zero chance of that happening.

It would make sense to modernize the way votes are allocated. Why not introduce a proportional threshold for % of victory by state?

b/c urban centers overwhelm...

Percentage of state vote which allocates EVs. This would make R's in NY and CA head to the polls. EX - California has 55 EVs and Clinton won it by 30 points. If a new Electoral College allocation says if the result is less than 20 points then the runner up gets 25% of the state votes then R's come away with 14 votes from a deep blue state.

It turns every state into a swing state per se.

(07-22-2020 09:22 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:13 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 05:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If it were a national popular vote, I would vote for Trump. But it's not, it's state by state. And Trump should win Texas without me, easily. If he doesn't, then he is toast nationally. So my vote really, really doesn't matter.

To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Additionally, winning the popular vote would give Trump much more of a "mandate" from the people in support of his agenda. It takes away the "most people don't want" argument from the dems.

So, IMO, every vote may not decide the election, but every vote does matter.

Smaller states are not going to vote away their power. It would require a constitutional amendment and there is zero chance of that happening.

It would make sense to modernize the way votes are allocated. Why not introduce a proportional threshold for % of victory by state?

b/c urban centers overwhelm...

Percentage of state vote which allocates EVs. This would make R's in NY and CA head to the polls. EX - California has 55 EVs and Clinton won it by 30 points. If a new Electoral College allocation says if the result is less than 20 points then the runner up gets 25% of the state votes then R's come away with 14 votes from a deep blue state.

It turns every state into a swing state per se.

gotcha now...

I'll agree it would put a premium on voting....my fear is how tech would manipulate more so moving forward...

the other obvious is how it weights the cons...therefore, it would be ruled unconstitutional...

(07-22-2020 09:34 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:22 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:13 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Additionally, winning the popular vote would give Trump much more of a "mandate" from the people in support of his agenda. It takes away the "most people don't want" argument from the dems.

So, IMO, every vote may not decide the election, but every vote does matter.

Smaller states are not going to vote away their power. It would require a constitutional amendment and there is zero chance of that happening.

It would make sense to modernize the way votes are allocated. Why not introduce a proportional threshold for % of victory by state?

b/c urban centers overwhelm...

Percentage of state vote which allocates EVs. This would make R's in NY and CA head to the polls. EX - California has 55 EVs and Clinton won it by 30 points. If a new Electoral College allocation says if the result is less than 20 points then the runner up gets 25% of the state votes then R's come away with 14 votes from a deep blue state.

It turns every state into a swing state per se.

gotcha now...

I'll agree it would put a premium on voting....my fear is how tech would manipulate more so moving forward...

They're going to manipulate and do whatever they feel necessary to influence public opinion.

The main beef with the EC is "my vote doesn't matter so I'm not voting." A proportional solution could motivate more in states that are usually already filled in. Take that California example. Trump gets 14 EV's and Clinton gets 41. It makes those flyover states even more meaningful and necessary to go visit.

(07-22-2020 09:38 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:34 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:22 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:13 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Smaller states are not going to vote away their power. It would require a constitutional amendment and there is zero chance of that happening.

It would make sense to modernize the way votes are allocated. Why not introduce a proportional threshold for % of victory by state?

b/c urban centers overwhelm...

Percentage of state vote which allocates EVs. This would make R's in NY and CA head to the polls. EX - California has 55 EVs and Clinton won it by 30 points. If a new Electoral College allocation says if the result is less than 20 points then the runner up gets 25% of the state votes then R's come away with 14 votes from a deep blue state.

It turns every state into a swing state per se.

gotcha now...

I'll agree it would put a premium on voting....my fear is how tech would manipulate more so moving forward...

They're going to manipulate and do whatever they feel necessary to influence public opinion.

The main beef with the EC is "my vote doesn't matter so I'm not voting." A proportional solution could motivate more in states that are usually already filled in. Take that California example. Trump gets 14 EV's and Clinton gets 41. It makes those flyover states even more meaningful and necessary to go visit.

see edit above...

don't get me wrong, I easily like it in scope if plausible to implement...unfortunately, that would take an act of congress that won't happen in today's version of the republic...

(07-22-2020 09:42 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  see edit above...

don't get me wrong, I easily like it in scope if plausible to implement...unfortunately, that would take an act of congress that won't happen in today's version of the republic...

You're right - was speaking more from an idealistic standpoint as none of these changes will actually be implemented.

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 05:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 11:37 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I said Jorgensen.
My decision model for some time has been libertarian if I can, Trump if I must, meaning that if Trump needs me I'll vote for him. Mainly I'm just voting against the democrats. But thinking about it, if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he's toast nationally.
So I'm voting Jorgensen (even though her VP running mate is a nut case), hoping for Trump, but preparing to be disappointed. The only real question for me is will I be leave the country disappointed or stay here and fight disappointed.

I respect your opinion, but if you’re voting against the Dems then the logical choice is voting for Trump. It’s either A or B.
Why not?

If it were a national popular vote, I would vote for Trump. But it's not, it's state by state. And Trump should win Texas without me, easily. If he doesn't, then he is toast nationally. So my vote really, really doesn't matter.

To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Additionally, winning the popular vote would give Trump much more of a "mandate" from the people in support of his agenda. It takes away the "most people don't want" argument from the dems.

So, IMO, every vote may not decide the election, but every vote does matter.

Changing the constitution takes considerably more than a mere majority. The electoral college is not changing.

What we may see is more states going to the Nebraska/Maine method whether electoral votes are allocated by US representative district.

A constitutional amendment — for anything — is extremely difficult to do.

When the effect of an amendment would have have such an immediate and obvious impact on the political/partisan balance — between the two main parties and also among the various states — it’s essentially impossible.

(07-22-2020 04:33 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  A protest against both, and I get that.

But here, right now, it’s a binary choice unfortunately.
It’s either the Orange poo-flinging orangutan we know now, or someone my late Mother would have rekked in scrabble just two years ago as she succumbed to the Alz’s.

IMOH, there is no choice, perhaps sit this one out then whine and moan from the sidelines, or burn other people’s schit down to finally make Mommy proud of you. Other than that?

Sloe or the Drumpf. Last call. Last hand. All in. Who do you trust with your future and the football?

Amazingly easy choice for me.

A Biden presidency will be run by his Democrat-Socialist VP and/or cabinet. Ole Joe will basically be a figurehead.

Quit trying to convince me to vote for Biden! I picked Hawkins but I'm really not a fan of him at all. He's a Russia Gate turd and has the charisma of a wet fart. Still better than Biden though, no matter how much you guys try to pretend he's gonna be a Democratic Socialist.

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Do people NOT Understand why the EC is in place anymore?

We are not a straight-democracy. We are a Representative Democracy.

You think Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, and .. Iowa are just going to roll over and say ... "Yep, California, you got more people that we do, we're just going to let you have your way over everything"?

F' the popular vote (I feel like Stink saying that)... you want a pure "democratic" mob rule country, I'm sure we can find one for you to move to. (And then see just how little your voice matters in those countries...)

(07-22-2020 11:47 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Do people NOT Understand why the EC is in place anymore?

We are not a straight-democracy. We are a Representative Democracy.

You think Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, and .. Iowa are just going to roll over and say ... "Yep, California, you got more people that we do, we're just going to let you have your way over everything"?

F' the popular vote (I feel like Stink saying that)... you want a pure "democratic" mob rule country, I'm sure we can find one for you to move to. (And then see just how little your voice matters in those countries...)

I am sure there are MANY that don't have a clue about the EC. For the most party though most of the detractors only know that the EC went against them last election so they don't like it. If Hillary would have won none of them would have an issue with the EC. Basically, they lost so they don't like it. The fact of the matter is, which they don't like, is that the EC did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.

(07-22-2020 10:52 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 04:33 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  A protest against both, and I get that.

But here, right now, it’s a binary choice unfortunately.
It’s either the Orange poo-flinging orangutan we know now, or someone my late Mother would have rekked in scrabble just two years ago as she succumbed to the Alz’s.

IMOH, there is no choice, perhaps sit this one out then whine and moan from the sidelines, or burn other people’s schit down to finally make Mommy proud of you. Other than that?

Sloe or the Drumpf. Last call. Last hand. All in. Who do you trust with your future and the football?

Amazingly easy choice for me.

A Biden presidency will be run by his Democrat-Socialist VP and/or cabinet. Ole Joe will basically be a figurehead.

Quit trying to convince me to vote for Biden! I picked Hawkins but I'm really not a fan of him at all. He's a Russia Gate turd and has the charisma of a wet fart. Still better than Biden though, no matter how much you guys try to pretend he's gonna be a Democratic Socialist.

You do realize if this country was to turn Socialist, it ain't all rainbows and puppy dogs.. Those in power will reap all the rewards while people like us wait on line for food.. The government will give us what they think we need to survive while they live in luxury. Jobs will disappear. But it won't matter, everyone will make the same. Price of gas will go sky high because of the Green New Deal, but you won't be able to afford a good horse, maybe an old nag.

(07-22-2020 11:51 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 11:47 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Do people NOT Understand why the EC is in place anymore?

We are not a straight-democracy. We are a Representative Democracy.

You think Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, and .. Iowa are just going to roll over and say ... "Yep, California, you got more people that we do, we're just going to let you have your way over everything"?

F' the popular vote (I feel like Stink saying that)... you want a pure "democratic" mob rule country, I'm sure we can find one for you to move to. (And then see just how little your voice matters in those countries...)

I am sure there are MANY that don't have a clue about the EC. For the most party though most of the detractors only know that the EC went against them last election so they don't like it. If Hillary would have won none of them would have an issue with the EC. Basically, they lost so they don't like it. The fact of the matter is, which they don't like, is that the EC did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.

One of the genius' here said it was unfair because Wyoming had more power than California and Wyoming policy shouldn't dictate this country, but California policy was fine.

(07-22-2020 12:17 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 11:51 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 11:47 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Do people NOT Understand why the EC is in place anymore?

We are not a straight-democracy. We are a Representative Democracy.

You think Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, and .. Iowa are just going to roll over and say ... "Yep, California, you got more people that we do, we're just going to let you have your way over everything"?

F' the popular vote (I feel like Stink saying that)... you want a pure "democratic" mob rule country, I'm sure we can find one for you to move to. (And then see just how little your voice matters in those countries...)

I am sure there are MANY that don't have a clue about the EC. For the most party though most of the detractors only know that the EC went against them last election so they don't like it. If Hillary would have won none of them would have an issue with the EC. Basically, they lost so they don't like it. The fact of the matter is, which they don't like, is that the EC did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.

One of the genius' here said it was unfair because Wyoming had more power than California and Wyoming policy shouldn't dictate this country, but California policy was fine.

Basically, whoever said that was arguing against his own logic. Probably didn't even realize that.

(07-22-2020 12:22 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:17 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 11:51 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 11:47 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:04 AM)banker Wrote:  To me the issue is the drumbeat against the electoral college. Popular vote doesn't matter for this election, but if Biden wins the popular while Trump wins the election I believe it cements the death of the EC when the dems do return to power.

Do people NOT Understand why the EC is in place anymore?

We are not a straight-democracy. We are a Representative Democracy.

You think Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, and .. Iowa are just going to roll over and say ... "Yep, California, you got more people that we do, we're just going to let you have your way over everything"?

F' the popular vote (I feel like Stink saying that)... you want a pure "democratic" mob rule country, I'm sure we can find one for you to move to. (And then see just how little your voice matters in those countries...)

I am sure there are MANY that don't have a clue about the EC. For the most party though most of the detractors only know that the EC went against them last election so they don't like it. If Hillary would have won none of them would have an issue with the EC. Basically, they lost so they don't like it. The fact of the matter is, which they don't like, is that the EC did EXACTLY what it was designed to do.

One of the genius' here said it was unfair because Wyoming had more power than California and Wyoming policy shouldn't dictate this country, but California policy was fine.

Basically, whoever said that was arguing against his own logic. Probably didn't even realize that.

I didn't call said poster a genius cause I think they're smart.. It was said in a sarcastic tone... I feel like it was Momus that made the comment.