Kansas Crimson

Sparko wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:37 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:46 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:32 pm

Do you truly believe “there is going to be blood in the streets all over the country?” Seriously.

Honestly, no but I didn't truly believe that millions of people were stupid enough to not see through his "the election is rigged if I lose" claims, either. And yet here we are.

Michigan with its RW armed thugs and kidnapping plots is a frightening tripwire if Trump keeps the coup running.

All his pathetic failings in court are taking a lot of steam out of those. The lack of formal transition puts the country in a more vulnerable state long term. You'd think a bunch of "patriots" would want what is actually best for the country but they seem to only want what is best for themselves personally. Hopefully nothing bad happens as a result and we can get this shit stain of an administration in our rearview mirror for good.

Michigan is deer hunting. Putting up our Christmas trees. Volunteering. Helping those in need.

It’s mostly the internet deviants and malcontents that are still stuck in the mud. They refuse to let go.

In other words, mich's folks.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:44 pm Michigan is deer hunting. Putting up our Christmas trees. Volunteering. Helping those in need.

if so, michigan’s public relations arm needs fired

and honestly, the way you post sure doesn’t give me the sense that you are all that concerned with helping out those in need

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:45 pm It’s mostly the internet deviants and malcontents that are still stuck in the mud. They refuse to let go.

Plan A, B and C. Yow.
https://abc7chicago.com/michigan-govern ... a/8079861/

Certified tomorrow. But boy do we need to kill the electoral college. Right now, it seems equal protection for voters does not exist.

Im not a big fan of the electoral college. But. You eliminate it and you take a lot of representation away from rural america and we become a country that makes decisions based on the needs of 10? 15? Big cities.

I’m fine with modifying the electoral college.

Take Oregon for example. 7 electoral votes. Biden 4 Trump 3. The winner take all scenario is dumb

The college was designed to hamstring the bigger states. It seems fair until you realize it was designed to subvert democracy if called upon. Right now, we have battleground states selecting presidents. The popular vote doesn’t cause the GOP angst. They keep their shitty policies in a little bag in the toilet tank. Would like to have them serve a majority of us or get bent.

Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:07 pm I’m fine with modifying the electoral college.

Take Oregon for example. 7 electoral votes. Biden 4 Trump 3. The winner take all scenario is dumb

That would be a more accurate representation of the voting populace. Theres already a mechanism in place for this right? Maine and Nebraska have a similar type set up.

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:51 pm Im not a big fan of the electoral college. But. You eliminate it and you take a lot of representation away from rural america and we become a country that makes decisions based on the needs of 10? 15? Big cities.

As opposed to the system now where 30% of the population and huge land masses make decisions for the everyone? Why should my vote for President be worth one third that of someone in Wyoming?

Sparko wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:16 pm The college was designed to hamstring the bigger states. It seems fair until you realize it was designed to subvert democracy if called upon. Right now, we have battleground states selecting presidents. The popular vote doesn’t cause the GOP angst. They keep their shitty policies in a little bag in the toilet tank. Would like to have them serve a majority of us or get bent.

Well, i mean Cali has 55 votes. Im not sure the dems feel hamstrung about a 55 vote lead headstart. I dont think it disproportionately disadvantages the large states.

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:31 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:51 pm Im not a big fan of the electoral college. But. You eliminate it and you take a lot of representation away from rural america and we become a country that makes decisions based on the needs of 10? 15? Big cities.

As opposed to the system now where 30% of the population and huge land masses make decisions for the everyone? Why should my vote for President be worth one third that of someone in Wyoming?

Wyoming gets 3 votes. You get 55.

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:27 pm

Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:07 pm I’m fine with modifying the electoral college.

Take Oregon for example. 7 electoral votes. Biden 4 Trump 3. The winner take all scenario is dumb

That would be a more accurate representation of the voting populace. Theres already a mechanism in place for this right? Maine and Nebraska have a similar type set up.

This then puts the emphasis on gerrymandering Congressional districts. Look at NC and Michigan. The total votes for the two parties are nearly equal but there is a huge disparity in congressional representation

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:33 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:27 pm

Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:07 pm I’m fine with modifying the electoral college.

Take Oregon for example. 7 electoral votes. Biden 4 Trump 3. The winner take all scenario is dumb

That would be a more accurate representation of the voting populace. Theres already a mechanism in place for this right? Maine and Nebraska have a similar type set up.

This then puts the emphasis on gerrymandering Congressional districts. Look at NC and Michigan. The total votes for the two parties are nearly equal but there is a huge disparity in congressional representation

So what's your solution?

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:31 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:31 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:51 pm Im not a big fan of the electoral college. But. You eliminate it and you take a lot of representation away from rural america and we become a country that makes decisions based on the needs of 10? 15? Big cities.

As opposed to the system now where 30% of the population and huge land masses make decisions for the everyone? Why should my vote for President be worth one third that of someone in Wyoming?

Wyoming gets 3 votes. You get 55.

Exactly. We have 70x the population. It would be equitable if we got 210 EV

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:33 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:27 pm

Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:07 pm I’m fine with modifying the electoral college.

Take Oregon for example. 7 electoral votes. Biden 4 Trump 3. The winner take all scenario is dumb

That would be a more accurate representation of the voting populace. Theres already a mechanism in place for this right? Maine and Nebraska have a similar type set up.

This then puts the emphasis on gerrymandering Congressional districts. Look at NC and Michigan. The total votes for the two parties are nearly equal but there is a huge disparity in congressional representation

This is also a byproduct of people living in big cities. Your going to get big vote totals in small areas.

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:35 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:31 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:31 pm

As opposed to the system now where 30% of the population and huge land masses make decisions for the everyone? Why should my vote for President be worth one third that of someone in Wyoming?

Wyoming gets 3 votes. You get 55.

Exactly. We have 70x the population. It would be equitable if we got 210 EV

Nah, you guys elected Newsome. I dont know if California should decide the country. But very Californian of you to think so