Grandmas multiple Election related questions for 11/04/20

[twocoach]

Money should be controlled/delved out equally by a neutral branch of the government at a certain state of the election process and there shouldn't be any extra money allowed in.

So more federal government involvement from an allegedly "neutral" branch. Eek. If we haven't learned from Trump that portions of our government previously considered to be "neutral" can find themselves being controlled by one of the parties then we'll never learn from any of our mistakes.

[pdub]

Equally if not more shady is the process we have today with big business, unions and billionaires driving elections.

[zsn]

Illy: how does going to national popular vote diminish rural vote, other than eliminating their current disproportionate advantage? If you go to national popular vote then EVERYONE’S vote counts exactly the same.

This way a Republican vote in California will count the same as a Democratic vote in the Dakotas. Right now each is useless.

[Deleted User 310]

Illy: how does going to national popular vote diminish rural vote, other than eliminating their current disproportionate advantage? If you go to national popular vote then EVERYONE’S vote counts exactly the same.

This way a Republican vote in California will count the same as a Democratic vote in the Dakotas. Right now each is useless.

Entire states would be overlooked by candidates.

But like i have said, i do see both sides of it. Pros and Cons to each imo.

[Deleted User 310]

Equally if not more shady is the process we have today with big business, unions and billionaires driving elections.

Exactly.

Candidates are bought and paid for by big business and special interest groups (or foreign countries).

[zsn]

Illy: how does going to national popular vote diminish rural vote, other than eliminating their current disproportionate advantage? If you go to national popular vote then EVERYONE’S vote counts exactly the same.

This way a Republican vote in California will count the same as a Democratic vote in the Dakotas. Right now each is useless.

Entire states would be overlooked by candidates.

But like i have said, i do see both sides of it. Pros and Cons to each imo.

Actually no. You have it exactly backwards. Now no presidential candidate goes to the Dakotas or Connecticut. If everyone is equal then the 100k vote difference in Connecticut maybe the difference nationally.

Right now candidates come to California just to raise money. But a million votes in California or Texas would have the effect that they should. Campaigns may calculate that every $ spent in a larger state may have a higher ROI but that’s no different than now.

Ultimately what may have a good impact is to reduce the length of campaign season. Deep six Iowa and NH and have the primary season begin in May, for three months, nomination convention in August and into general.

[Cascadia]

Illy: how does going to national popular vote diminish rural vote, other than eliminating their current disproportionate advantage? If you go to national popular vote then EVERYONE’S vote counts exactly the same.

This way a Republican vote in California will count the same as a Democratic vote in the Dakotas. Right now each is useless.

Entire states would be overlooked by candidates.

But like i have said, i do see both sides of it. Pros and Cons to each imo.

Actually no. You have it exactly backwards. Now no presidential candidate goes to the Dakotas or Connecticut. If everyone is equal then the 100k vote difference in Connecticut maybe the difference nationally.

Right now candidates come to California just to raise money. But a million votes in California or Texas would have the effect that they should. Campaigns may calculate that every $ spent in a larger state may have a higher ROI but that’s no different than now.

Ultimately what may have a good impact is to reduce the length of campaign season. Deep six Iowa and NH and have the primary season begin in May, for three months, nomination convention in August and into general.

Illy’s a trumper, he doesn’t want every vote to count.

[Deleted User 310]

Illy: how does going to national popular vote diminish rural vote, other than eliminating their current disproportionate advantage? If you go to national popular vote then EVERYONE’S vote counts exactly the same.

This way a Republican vote in California will count the same as a Democratic vote in the Dakotas. Right now each is useless.

Entire states would be overlooked by candidates.

But like i have said, i do see both sides of it. Pros and Cons to each imo.

Actually no. You have it exactly backwards. Now no presidential candidate goes to the Dakotas or Connecticut. If everyone is equal then the 100k vote difference in Connecticut maybe the difference nationally.

Right now candidates come to California just to raise money. But a million votes in California or Texas would have the effect that they should. Campaigns may calculate that every $ spent in a larger state may have a higher ROI but that’s no different than now.

Ultimately what may have a good impact is to reduce the length of campaign season. Deep six Iowa and NH and have the primary season begin in May, for three months, nomination convention in August and into general.

A lot of people seem to have it backwards then...all list making every part of the country matter/giving smaller states a voice as a "pro" of the electoral college.

https://www.procon.org/headlines/the-el ... -and-cons/

https://smartasset.com/insights/the-pro ... al-college

https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-col ... ns-4686409


https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... llege.aspx

https://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION ... procon.php

[Deleted User 310]

Entire states would be overlooked by candidates.

But like i have said, i do see both sides of it. Pros and Cons to each imo.

Actually no. You have it exactly backwards. Now no presidential candidate goes to the Dakotas or Connecticut. If everyone is equal then the 100k vote difference in Connecticut maybe the difference nationally.

Right now candidates come to California just to raise money. But a million votes in California or Texas would have the effect that they should. Campaigns may calculate that every $ spent in a larger state may have a higher ROI but that’s no different than now.

Ultimately what may have a good impact is to reduce the length of campaign season. Deep six Iowa and NH and have the primary season begin in May, for three months, nomination convention in August and into general.

Illy’s a trumper, he doesn’t want every vote to count.

No. I just don't think 5 or 6 large cities should control the entire country.

We have 50 states. Those large cities already control their states.

We have state governments and national government. The national government should not be all about catering to the desires of a handful of extremely populated areas imo.

[zsn]

EC = tyranny of the minority. Plain and simple.

TL;DR on the links but one pro- sentiment seems to be ‘because the Founding Fathers said so. But it’s just one more thing the Founding Fathers got wrong.

Right now the big cities are actually getting f-ed over. Again you never did actually explain how 5-6 big cities would end up controlling everything? I don’t need links. YOU explain to me why you think it’s so. Near 30% of the population basically control 60% of the Senate and the Presidency.

[Deleted User 310]

#1)Right now the big cities are actually getting f-ed over.

#2)Again you never did actually explain how 5-6 big cities would end up controlling everything? I don’t need links. YOU explain to me why you think it’s so. Near 30% of the population basically control 60% of the Senate and the Presidency.

#1) no they aren't. They pretty much control their state.

#2)We are 50 individual states. I don't know how else to explain it.


Like i said, i see both sides to the coin. I understand why you want popular vote to be the only decider.

[Cascadia]

EC = tyranny of the minority. Plain and simple.

TL;DR on the links but one pro- sentiment seems to be ‘because the Founding Fathers said so. But it’s just one more thing the Founding Fathers got wrong.

Right now the big cities are actually getting f-ed over. Again you never did actually explain how 5-6 big cities would end up controlling everything? I don’t need links. YOU explain to me why you think it’s so. Near 30% of the population basically control 60% of the Senate and the Presidency.

You’re arguing with a lemming

[twocoach]

Equally if not more shady is the process we have today with big business, unions and billionaires driving elections.

Taking the money out of politics is like taking the shoe company money out of ncaa sports. Good luck with that. The more you make it against the rules, the more rules get broken.

People with money aren't going to let their interests lie in the hands of regular citizens without their participation. It's a romantic idea but not at all grounded in reality.

[twocoach]

#1)Right now the big cities are actually getting f-ed over.

#2)Again you never did actually explain how 5-6 big cities would end up controlling everything? I don’t need links. YOU explain to me why you think it’s so. Near 30% of the population basically control 60% of the Senate and the Presidency.

#1) no they aren't. They pretty much control their state.

#2)We are 50 individual states. I don't know how else to explain it.


Like i said, i see both sides to the coin. I understand why you want popular vote to be the only decider.

If we're nothing more than 50 individual states then we don't need a President. Good grief.

[Deleted User 310]

#1)Right now the big cities are actually getting f-ed over.

#2)Again you never did actually explain how 5-6 big cities would end up controlling everything? I don’t need links. YOU explain to me why you think it’s so. Near 30% of the population basically control 60% of the Senate and the Presidency.

#1) no they aren't. They pretty much control their state.

#2)We are 50 individual states. I don't know how else to explain it.


Like i said, i see both sides to the coin. I understand why you want popular vote to be the only decider.

If we're nothing more than 50 individual states then we don't need a President. Good grief.

Good grief is right. What a stupid response, even for you.

[twocoach]

EC = tyranny of the minority. Plain and simple.

TL;DR on the links but one pro- sentiment seems to be ‘because the Founding Fathers said so. But it’s just one more thing the Founding Fathers got wrong.

Right now the big cities are actually getting f-ed over. Again you never did actually explain how 5-6 big cities would end up controlling everything? I don’t need links. YOU explain to me why you think it’s so. Near 30% of the population basically control 60% of the Senate and the Presidency.

I dont think they got it wrong. It just worked in a country of 13 states with a grand total of about a million people better than it does in a country of 50 states with 328 million people.

[pdub]

Equally if not more shady is the process we have today with big business, unions and billionaires driving elections.

Taking the money out of politics is like taking the shoe company money out of ncaa sports. Good luck with that. The more you make it against the rules, the more rules get broken.

People with money aren't going to let their interests lie in the hands of regular citizens without their participation. It's a romantic idea but not at all grounded in reality.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

[twocoach]

#1) no they aren't. They pretty much control their state.

#2)We are 50 individual states. I don't know how else to explain it.


Like i said, i see both sides to the coin. I understand why you want popular vote to be the only decider.

If we're nothing more than 50 individual states then we don't need a President. Good grief.

Good grief is right. What a stupid response, even for you.

You're completely ignoring everyone's point. It doesn't matter that they are big relative to their state. It matters how their votes compare in their own state in a nationwide election.

South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes with a population of 884,000. That's 1 EC vote per 294,000 citizens.

California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of 39.5 million.
That's 1 EC vote per 718,000 citizens.

See the problem?

[Cascadia]

If we're nothing more than 50 individual states then we don't need a President. Good grief.

Good grief is right. What a stupid response, even for you.

You're completely ignoring everyone's point. It doesn't matter that they are big relative to their state. It matters how their votes compare in their own state in a nationwide election.

South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes with a population of 884,000. That's 1 EC vote per 294,000 citizens.

California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of 39.5 million.
That's 1 EC vote per 718,000 citizens.

See the problem?

There is no problem with this when you’re a trumper

[pdub]

I see the problem.
Illy admitted earlier that he sees the problem.
But he's still valid in saying we are a collection of 50 states and the EC does a better job of gauging the general feel of the whole country rather than pockets.

I think it's flawed but I also think a simple majority is also flawed.