Hey Bernie, you only THOUGHT you won New Hampshire........

[nevergaveitathought]

if the facts were such that only one or a small handful of states could give the election to a candidate, perhaps you have a some argument

but that's not the case nor has been the case in our history and has to date always worked to give small states at least some voice as states

in 2012 the state with the most electors, I think, was California with 55

270 is required to win the presidency

trying to cobble together 270 electoral votes is the key

granted there is not some equal electioneering going on in all states, never has been, never will be

but small states at least have some say. the idea of the electoral college is the protection of and the preservation of individual states

they, the small states, wouldn't have any input without the electoral college

without an electoral college, if you had the option to visit new york city, with say 10 million people in a a 200 mile circumference, or drive around Wyoming looking for a vote, where would you spend time?

I am not saying the same effort is ever spent in a small state as in a large one, but with the electoral college system the votes cast in a small state have a collective voice as a state

if you don't think having states is appropriate, and that states have no useful function today , nor should be allowed to have their own local and state laws and governance and freedoms or lack thereof, and input into our system as INDIVIDUAL STATES, then that's one thing, but I think preserving the states are worthwhile, and of course we just need to follow the 10th amendment as well

[lustylad]

Eatfibo, if your beef lies in the fact that the big states like New York, California and Texas aren't getting enough attention, while the swing states like Ohio and Florida have all the fun, the solution is obvious - make every state a swing state! Have Texas swap some of its surplus GOP voters with New York Dems until both states are in play. Problem solved!

By the way, your assumption that some states are permanently red or blue is an insult to all those independent voters out there. And an insult to candidates with the ability to appeal to both parties.

And let's not forget that electoral votes are simply the total of Congressional seats + two Senators for each state. So they are doled out roughly according to each state's population. It's the winner-take-all rule (for each state's electoral votes) that raises the possibility that a Presidential candidate can win the popular vote and lose the electoral college, or vice versa.
.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

if the facts were such that only one or a small handful of states could give the election to a candidate, perhaps you have a some argument

But that is basically what happens right now. We know CA is going to go dem, we know TX is going rep. So they don't focus on these states. When I lived in NY, it was always pretty well known that it was going to go Dem, and I basically (thankfully) rarely saw presidential political adds during the campaign. I remember going to CO heading up to a presidential election and being astonished by how many ads there were on TV. I was effectively ignored in NY, while CO was effectively bombared.

Look at the chart on this page. See how some states got hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising campaigns, while most had next to none.

granted there is not some equal electioneering going on in all states, never has been, never will be

You basically defeat a huge part of your own argument with this: if it isn't going to be fair, and it never has been. . .why not give every individual an equal say? Saying (effectively) "it's unfair to have every individual be equal" and then turning around and saying "well, it's always unfair" doesn't make any sense.

if you had the option to visit new york city, with say 10 million people in a a 200 mile circumference, or drive around Wyoming looking for a vote, where would you spend time?

And if you know that TX is going rep, and CA is going to dem, why would you ever go there? Your argument for the electoral college can also be used against it.

Abandon the question of fairness. We both agree that it isn't going to be fair to something no matter how the system is set up. You believe that "states" should have more of a say, I believe it is the individuals. Why why should states have more of a say than individuals?

if you don't think having states is appropriate, and that states have no useful function today , nor should be allowed to have their own local and state laws and governance and freedoms or lack thereof, and input into our system as INDIVIDUAL STATES, then that's one thing, but I think preserving the states are worthwhile, and of course we just need to follow the 10th amendment as well

I never said anything about abandoning the concept of individual states. I'm talking about electing the president. So the question is, why do you think the states should have more say in electing the president than the individuals?

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Eatfibo, if your beef lies in the fact that the big states like New York, California and Texas aren't getting enough attention, while the swing states like Ohio and Florida have all the fun, the solution is obvious - make every state a swing state! Have Texas swap some of its surplus GOP voters with New York Dems until both states are in play. Problem solved!

No, my beef, which I have made clear, is some voting individuals have way more influence over the election of the president than others. I believe we all should have equal say. It's ridiculous that my vote should count less, if even at all, simply because I am part of a bigger state.

By the way, your assumption that some states are permanently red or blue is an insult to all those independent voters out there. And an insult to candidates with the ability to appeal to both parties.

I guess I could have been more clear, but my intent was never to suggest that they are permanently not swing states, only that, as I said, "It usually isn't much of a guess which states are going to be the swing states."

So they are doled out roughly according to each state's population.

Not accurate. As I already pointed out, Wyoming has less than 200k people per electoral, and TX has over 700k people per electoral. This means that people in Wyoming's vote counts more than 3 times as someone in Texas, assuming similar voting rates.

It's the winner-take-all rule (for each state's electoral votes) that raises the possibility that a Presidential candidate can win the popular vote and lose the electoral college, or vice versa.

Exactly. And considering the main reason for this, unfair focusing on certain populations during campaigns, happens anyway. . .what's the point? Why not have ever individual count equally?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

But that is basically what happens right now. We know CA is going to go dem, we know TX is going rep. So they don't focus on these states. When I lived in NY, it was always pretty well known that it was going to go Dem, and I basically (thankfully) rarely saw presidential political adds during the campaign. I remember going to CO heading up to a presidential election and being astonished by how many ads there were on TV. I was effectively ignored in NY, while CO was effectively bombared.

Look at the chart on this page. See how some states got hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising campaigns, while most had next to none.


You basically defeat a huge part of your own argument with this: if it isn't going to be fair, and it never has been. . .why not give every individual an equal say? Saying (effectively) "it's unfair to have every individual be equal" and then turning around and saying "well, it's always unfair" doesn't make any sense.


And if you know that TX is going rep, and CA is going to dem, why would you ever go there? Your argument for the electoral college can also be used against it.

Abandon the question of fairness. We both agree that it isn't going to be fair to something no matter how the system is set up. You believe that "states" should have more of a say, I believe it is the individuals. Why why should states have more of a say than individuals?


I never said anything about abandoning the concept of individual states. I'm talking about electing the president. So the question is, why do you think the states should have more say in electing the president than the individuals?

doing away with the electoral college does lessen states power, so you did say it in essence, you just fail to recognize it. states, as conceived (conceived, concept you get it?) are diminished greatly without the electoral college

and not to speak of the tyranny of the majority, minority views would be run roughshod, at least states in the minority can currently have some input

the rest of your post is meritless without the desire to lessen states power. and besides the worth of an individual vote is strengthened not lessened with the electoral college

your slight of hand on the "isnt going to be fair" is quite hilarious. I never said anything like that

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

You have it exactly backwards. The electoral college negates the input of smaller states, and gives inordinate sway to larger states. In order to win 100% of the electoral from a state, you need only secure the most votes, even if you don't earn 50.1%.

Lets say we have 5 states.

Four states each have a population of 200,000
One state has a population of 1 million

Electors are apportioned to each state according to population. For each 50,000 people you get 1 elector. So the 4 states each get 4 electors. The fifth state gets 20 electors.

Candidate A runs a nationwide campaign, visiting each state, and spending campaign dollars in every state on ads, events, etc. For his efforts in the smaller states, he receives 70% of the vote in the 4 small states. He earns 16 electors, and gets a total of 560,000. He gets 49.9% of the votes in the fifth state. He earns no electors there, but gets a total of 499,900 votes, for a total of 1,059,000 votes.

Candidate B is no dummy. He flies over the 4 small states, focusing only on the fifth state. He invests all of his resources on campaigning in that state. For his efforts he receives 50.1% of the vote in that state. He gets 20 electors, and 501,000 votes. In the smaller states he only earns a total of 240,000.

Candidate B wins the election with 20 electors to Candidate A's 16. However, Candidate A trounced his opponent in the popular vote with 1,059,000 to 741,000 votes.

In other words, THIS is why we see so little of the candidates out campaigning in Iowa (after the primaries that is), Kansas, Nebraska, and all the other "fly over" states. The electors in these states simply aren't worth the investment of time and resources to candidates.

In a system where every single vote counts the same as any other, then every vote counts, regardless of whether it is cast in Kansas, Texas, or California - making every state worth campaigning in, and speaking to.

Somebody gets it, thanks Sins.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

You have it exactly backwards. The electoral college negates the input of smaller states, and gives inordinate sway to larger states. In order to win 100% of the electoral from a state, you need only secure the most votes, even if you don't earn 50.1%.

Lets say we have 5 states.

Four states each have a population of 200,000
One state has a population of 1 million

Electors are apportioned to each state according to population. For each 50,000 people you get 1 elector. So the 4 states each get 4 electors. The fifth state gets 20 electors.

Candidate A runs a nationwide campaign, visiting each state, and spending campaign dollars in every state on ads, events, etc. For his efforts in the smaller states, he receives 70% of the vote in the 4 small states. He earns 16 electors, and gets a total of 560,000. He gets 49.9% of the votes in the fifth state. He earns no electors there, but gets a total of 499,900 votes, for a total of 1,059,000 votes.

Candidate B is no dummy. He flies over the 4 small states, focusing only on the fifth state. He invests all of his resources on campaigning in that state. For his efforts he receives 50.1% of the vote in that state. He gets 20 electors, and 501,000 votes. In the smaller states he only earns a total of 240,000.

Candidate B wins the election with 20 electors to Candidate A's 16. However, Candidate A trounced his opponent in the popular vote with 1,059,000 to 741,000 votes.

In other words, THIS is why we see so little of the candidates out campaigning in Iowa (after the primaries that is), Kansas, Nebraska, and all the other "fly over" states. The electors in these states simply aren't worth the investment of time and resources to candidates.

In a system where every single vote counts the same as any other, then every vote counts, regardless of whether it is cast in Kansas, Texas, or California - making every state worth campaigning in, and speaking to.

"How many electors does each state get?

Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators plus the number of its U.S. representatives." - ABCNews

Therefore, your argument is based upon 50,000 per elector is not quite right.
Wyoming, with its small population, gets more elector per capita this way, making the power of a state useful. It is not intended that population is the only factor, so small states get some benefit from the system.

In your example, each of the small states would get 6 electors.
The large state would get 22 electors.

Win the 4 small states, and you get 24 electors.

Another way to manipulate the vote count is gerrymandering - basically pack all your opponents into one district, and create other districts with 60% majorities. Since this is a political process to apportion district boundaries, and everyone knows it, the political process guards against it.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

your slight of hand on the "isnt going to be fair" is quite hilarious. I never said anything like that

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

without the electoral college, some small states would have no say in the presidential election at all
large urban areas would be where the candidates would concentrate, it would be all about getting out the most votes for the most promises where the population centers are.

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

in an electoral college system all are protected, states and individuals, especially those in a minority

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the electoral college allows people to have an equal say,

doing away with it wouldn't

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

along with a type of protection of the minority

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

they, the small states, wouldn't have any input without the electoral college

Yup, sure is clear that your point has nothing to do with fairness at all.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Not accurate. As I already pointed out, Wyoming has less than 200k people per electoral, and TX has over 700k people per electoral. This means that people in Wyoming's vote counts more than 3 times as someone in Texas, assuming similar voting rates.

You picked WY for the comparison because it is our most underpopulated state, with only one Congressional seat for the entire state. Therefore it gets 3 electoral votes (as do MT, ND, SD, VT and DE). If this is such a big deal, why don't you argue for abolishing the US Senate? The discrepancy is much greater there. Wyoming has less than 300k people for each US Senator while Texas has almost 14 million. That means a Wyoming vote is 47 times as potent as a Texas vote. How fucking unfair!

Personally I like the electoral college formula. It's clever, balanced and unique. It's rooted in federalism and linked to our bicameral legislative system. It's elastic (updated for each census) and designed to last. And it's American. So anyone who opposes it must be un-American!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Yup, sure is clear that your point has nothing to do with fairness at all.

ok, this is going to take "fairness" and a willingness to be honest on your part for you to allow yourself to follow this post


what does any of what you copied have to do with you typing "You basically defeat a huge part of your own argument with this: if it isn't going to be fair, and it never has been"

and you used a colon as if I said what follows the colon

what I said was what you copied when you posted what you indicated was from me, the false "if it isn't going to be fair...

what i said was "granted there is not some equal electioneering going on in all states, never has been, never will be"

you twisted that into me saying "if it isnt going to be fair and never has been"

if what isn't going to be fair?

in essence my statements are supportive of keeping with our republic and to protect states and the individuals in those states with the electoral college. the concept of fair has never been discussed by me

so what is the "if" and the "it" in "IF IT isn't going to be fair? and what exactly do you have me indicating "hasn't ever been fair?"

[LexusLover]

Bernie did "win" the election in New Hampshire.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You fuckers got nothing better to moan about?

You knew the answer before asking the question.

That makes you stupid, especially LLephantMan, who supports Citizens United but wants indictments over this. And everything else.

Don't bitch if you can't pitch.

I'm questioning whether you believe in democracy and the Bill of Rights. Twenty percent of the delegates to the Democrat convention are unelected party big wigs. That's enough to swing the election away from someone like Sanders who may be the choice of the people but not the Democrat party elite.

You point out Citizens United, and I suspect you're a big Lois Lerner fan as well. In other words, you apparently don't believe in free speech. Unless of course it's free speech exercised by group you favor, like trial lawyers, unions, and Moveon.org.

What takes the cake for me is Elizabeth Warren's current crusade against mens rea, the principal that if you don't know a law exists, you shouldn't be prosecuted for violating it. She and her cohorts in Congress pass thousands of laws and are responsible for many more regulations, so many that no one knows what the hell is illegal. Warren thinks this is great, having lots of laws out there that no one knows about, so that government can put anybody in jail that it wants to. Harvey Silvergate, the civil rights lawyer, estimates the average American unwittingly commits three felonies a day. Warren would use that as a tool against businessmen, like the guy who imported lobsters in plastic packages instead of cardboard packages, as required by law, and was sentenced to 8 years.

I am not applying this to you Yssup, but I am to some in your party. You mother fuckers deserve to be in Stalinist Russia, because its principals are your principals.

I've got similar things to say about some socially conservative, "law & order" Republicans btw.

[Jackie S]

Let's all see how ole Bern does tonight in the Democrat Charade masquerading as a debate.

Until the naive old fool looks across that stage and says..."Mrs. Clinton, everybody know you are nothing but a lying, money grubbing, sexual predator enabling cunt. It's beyond me why anybody would vote for you", he will continue to be treated like the crazy old uncle at the wedding with the lamp shade on his head.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm questioning whether you believe in democracy and the Bill of Rights. Twenty percent of the delegates to the Democrat convention are unelected party big wigs. That's enough to swing the election away from someone like Sanders who may be the choice of the people but not the Democrat party elite.

You point out Citizens United, and I suspect you're a big Lois Lerner fan as well. In other words, you apparently don't believe in free speech. Unless of course it's free speech exercised by group you favor, like trial lawyers, unions, and Moveon.org.

What takes the cake for me is Elizabeth Warren's current crusade against mens rea, the principal that if you don't know a law exists, you shouldn't be prosecuted for violating it. She and her cohorts in Congress pass thousands of laws and are responsible for many more regulations, so many that no one knows what the hell is illegal. Warren thinks this is great, having lots of laws out there that no one knows about, so that government can put anybody in jail that it wants to. Harvey Silvergate, the civil rights lawyer, estimates the average American unwittingly commits three felonies a day. Warren would use that as a tool against businessmen, like the guy who imported lobsters in plastic packages instead of cardboard packages, as required by law, and was sentenced to 8 years.

I am not applying this to you Yssup, but I am to some in your party. You mother fuckers deserve to be in Stalinist Russia, because its principals are your principals.

I've got similar things to say about some socially conservative, "law & order" Republicans btw.

+1

Well said. But don't hesitate to apply it to Asswipe. He's a big fan of all three bitches - Hillary, Lois Lerner and Fauxcohantas Warren! Stalinist methods are always embraced by libtards whose only guiding principle is - the end justifies the means!

P.S. What three felonies did Asswipe commit today?

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the electoral college allows people to have an equal say,

doing away with it wouldn't

the number of electors given states based on population winnows down the worth of a vote in a small state to the mean.

the electoral college system increases the worth of a single vote within a state as opposed to the worth of a vote in a national election. every single vote is worth more, no matter a given state's size, than it would be worth in a national election.

then because the number of electors a given state receives is based on it's population size, the worth of all votes are indirectly equalized, but the current system gives each state some say

doing away with it would also severely damage federalism, all states at least have some sway currently

swing states are not near the issue as large population centers would be without the electoral college, as they come and they go.

the dims had some scheme to make texas purple.
they made the once red state of Virginia purple, if not blue.
Wisconsin may go the other way.
florida is the current idea of a swing state, that once solid conservative state, but with all the new yorkers retiring there, who probably vote in both states, its changed.
Colorado has changed.

large cities rarely, if ever reduce in size, they only ever grow, and that's where the favoritism and electioneering would head, and remain, and would not change near as readily as a swing state might, without the electoral college

but what would change is the idea and concept and the idealistic idea it might be, of 50 separate states

along with a type of protection of the minority

But, but ,but odummer says we have 57 states !