|
America is a union of states and as such it is appropriate for each state to have a meaningful say in what goes on in the federal government.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Yinlock posted:"at least he does something" is a really bad argument when that something is make things worse, every single time. see, what are you talking about. He hasn't done anything. He isn't even the President yet. Yinlock posted:well I guess Trump's initiative will force change on a stagnant america. A literal nazi. It's not just goons that are known to talk a lot of poo poo, it's Americans generally. How is this man a literal Nazi? Are you going to link me to some grainy black and white footage? What utter poo poo are you talking? The Kingfish posted:America is a union of states and as such it is appropriate for each state to have a meaningful say in what goes on in the federal government. There you go. It's a union of states. Not a nation, not a collective group of Americans. It's a bunch of tribes that don't really want to be together and make that known at every opportunity. Ridiculous. edit: what is my point? hate America? Not at all. The point is you've got a lot of crazy old poo poo hanging around in your society and you need to deal with lots of it. Walking around with guns is ridiculous Wild West bullshit and results in what you've got, metal detectors in schools. The 'states' being separate from the federation.. didn't you fight a war over this? Isn't it settled? Once you start questioning the electoral college I would encourage you look at ideas such as OMG SOCIALISM MEANS ANYTHING CENTRALLY CONTROLLED as the outdated poo poo it is. The electoral college is small-fry compared to some of these. Tony Montana has issued a correction as of 04:58 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Hi there, Where are you from? All that stuff is true about us, but if your country is better I need to add it to the places I can move to if Trumps America gets too hot over here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:
wow we got a modern day de tocqueville over here
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:Where are you from? All that stuff is true about us, but if your country is better I need to add it to the places I can move to if Trumps America gets too hot over here. Australia. Let me also add, I am more of an American advocate than most. I owe my career entirely to the United States and my whole working life I have read text books and replaced American examples with my own. When I feel like loving America all I need to do is go and watch some docos on the Apollo programme and others, take note of how we automatically claim these achievements as 'for all humanity' but the reality is the US got the moon first because they worked out how to build a rocket that didn't blow up first. It's almost tough love. You can hear Obama talk about when he visited Australia and met with Howard and he learned about a mass shooting we had, down in Tasmania, with a fellow named Martyn Bryant. The take-away was after that we out-lawed all semi-automatics (or something like that, I'm not a gun person. We passed legislation that made a shitload of people hand in their guns) and do you know how many mass shootings we've had like that since? None. Obama just couldn't comprehend how we managed to do such a thing here but he couldn't get it done in the US. Also we have our own problems, but I would say on balance I think I'd prefer to be here than there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Australia. I understand. That was illuminating. I wouldn't want to be here for a Trump presidency either. But, here I am... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Australia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:see, what are you talking about. He hasn't done anything. He isn't even the President yet. You should probably take whatever medicine your doctor told you to take that you're not taking Either that or you've been stung by one of the countless hilariously lethal creatures that inhabit your weird desert hell island and are currently experiencing the early stages of brain death Either way, get help
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:America is a union of states and as such it is appropriate for each state to have a meaningful say in what goes on in the federal government. So why doesn't California, for example, get a meaningful say appropriate to its size? And why should arbitrary states lines matter for national elections, especially considering everything else about the American system is set up to favor smaller states?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Hillary literally campaigned to win the popular vote because she thought she had the electoral vote in the bag and was worried Trump might win the popular vote. She spent millions in California to drum up support and get out the vote. And it worked. California voted a shitload for her. The problem was the campaign, not the system. If she had campaigned to win the electoral vote she probably would have. Thoguh has issued a correction as of 14:07 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:So why doesn't California, for example, get a meaningful say appropriate to its size? California gets a very large say compared to other states. It doesn't get a directly proportional amount of EC votes because it would drown out the voices of the smaller states. State lines aren't any more arbitrary than national borders. Nothing favors the small states over the big states, but we do have a system so that large states can't dominate the small states. The Kingfish has issued a correction as of 17:03 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:The problem was the campaign, not the system. Its both really. The EC sucks, it's always been elitist garbage and lol at people who think today it somehow works in the interest of anyone who isn't making $$$ off of swing state campaigning
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
florida and ohio and pa aren't small states btw
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:California gets a very large say compared to other states. It doesn't get a directly proportional amount of EC votes because it would drown out the voices of the smaller states. No, California gets a comparatively small say compared to other states. So instead, having smaller states dominate bigger states is better? Why is every vote being of equal weight not the preferable system? Is there any rational reason to this beyond "this is the system we currently have"? Shouldn't a national election represent people? Plus, the EC doesn't even favor small states. Voters in most states simply don't matter with the EC. Fame Douglas has issued a correction as of 17:34 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:No, California gets a comparatively small say compared to other states. The individuals living in California have a comparatively smaller say, but the state of California has a much greater say in the federal government than the smaller states. Small states do not dominate the large states in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:but the state of California has a much greater say in the federal government than the smaller states. [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The individuals living in California have a comparatively smaller say, but the state of California has a much greater say in the federal government than the smaller states. Small states do not dominate the large states in any meaningful way. I asked this and no one answered. How does CA get a much greater say in Federal gov't? What the f are you talking about when no one at all gives any mind to CA's issues??? We barely got $100m drought relief and even that was a big contentious thing. Nevermind that we routinely pay out more than we get back in via federal taxes. Dog people don't even campaign here except for token TV/radio ads. Everyone loves to get their political donations from CA then they gently caress off and ignore us until the next election. The Kingfish posted:Nothing favors the small states over the big states, but we do have a system so that large states can't dominate the small states. lmao no dude. There's tons of compromises carried over from back when rural slave owning states were throwing a fit about more populous free states dictating to them. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 18:39 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I asked this and no one answered. CA gets more representatives in congress and more votes in the electoral college?? I can promise you that more people care about California's local problems than Wyoming's. The small voting population states didn't want the large population states dictating to them them so they took steps to make sure that the federal government isn't dominated by the large population states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:see, what are you talking about. He hasn't done anything. He isn't even the President yet. except he already paid a company to deport a bunch of jobs to mexico and is forcing foreign visitors to stay in his lovely hotels despite this, MAN OF ACTION also re:nazis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon steve bannon is an anti-semitic fascist, i'm not sure what other description fits, he is also trump's chief adviser
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:So instead, having smaller states dominate bigger states is better? Why is every vote being of equal weight not the preferable system? Is there any rational reason to this beyond "this is the system we currently have"? Shouldn't a national election represent people? the EC was actually made to(ostensibly) stop a Donald Trump situation from happening, but WELP
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:CA gets more representatives in congress and more votes in the electoral college?? I can promise you that more people care about California's local problems than Wyoming's. EC votes are meaningless. We go strongly blue every time and everyone knows it thus no campaigning happens here and thanks to how swing states work our votes are literally not worth as much. Thanks to EC, millions of votes in CA straight didn't matter. Relative to Wyoming, mathematically we get 1/70th of the representation in the US Senate per person and 1/3rd the representation per person per EC vote. There is the House ofc, but that's so goddamn gerrymandered anyway it's lol as hell. As for our relative strength thanks to our GDP... In 2012 we paid out nearly $300 billion in US federal taxes, and during that same year we received back about 78 cents on the dollar while idiot Southern states nonstop bitching about entitlements get more than $2 per dollar they pay out. 20% of the federal taxes we paid was spent on direct subsidies to other states. That's the equivalent of 2/3rds of our entire state budget that we're sending out to the rest of the country which nonstop shits on us for being some nanny liberal failure state. Our contribution to the US Defense budget was $57 billion in 2012, more than Russia spends on national defense ($52 billion). Meanwhile, our schools and infrastructure are hard up for cash because we're sending all this money out of state to pay for Brownback's idiot rear end. What do we get for it? Some lip service and token nods, as far as I can tell. The Kingfish posted:The small voting population states didn't want the large population states dictating to them them so they took steps to make sure that the federal government isn't dominated by the large population states. Purely because they were slave states who didn't want abolition. How is that relevant today? Given the sorry state of affairs in most of those small pop states, maybe they should get dictated to a little bit. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 20:01 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
EC was meant for slavers originally although the "represent smaller states" rationalization came later
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Jerry Brown and Sam Brownback were elected in the same year. Look at how California and Kansas have done in the 6 years since then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
california is going to launch their own satellites while Kansas residents wish they were in space rather than in kansas
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:EC was meant for slavers originally
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
basic knowledge of us history, i assume
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:What makes you say that? Because that's literally why it exists. It was created bc initial elections were super contentious because slave states were throwing a ruckus so we got the 12th amendment. Which then let the slave states count their slave population (at 3/5ths value vs a non-slave) as part of their EC vote count. Then for the next 36 years after, there was a slave owning Virginian in office for 32 of them. After which it got all civil war up in this bitch. Like literally the Electoral College is Madison's compromise to the slave states. After the 3/5ths compromise, Virginia became the 'most populated state' and had the most EC votes. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 20:48 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Al! posted:basic knowledge of us history, i assume Moridin920 posted:Because that's literally why it exists. It was created bc initial elections were super contentious because slave states were throwing a ruckus so we got the 12th amendment. Which then let the slave states count their slave population (at 3/5ths value vs a non-slave) as part of their EC vote count.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
The non-slave argument is that ordinary citizens spread across the US would lack sufficient information to directly vote for a candidate which maybe would have made sense 200-250 years ago but even that's not the real reason the EC exists. It is literally because slave states wanted their slaves to count as population so they could use the slave "votes" to stop abolition.Strudel Man posted:???? The electoral college came out of the 1787 constitutional convention. The 12th amendment may have tweaked it, but it didn't create it. Er right my bad. The rest is still true though. The slave states wouldn't have ratified the constitution in 1787 without some bones kicked to them, one of which is the EC. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 20:52 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:But that's exactly what I have, and I'm not aware from it that slavery was an important factor there. To my knowledge it was because the framers in their naivete thought they could avoid political bargaining by having indirect election by groups of well-informed electors who cast their votes as state blocs, instead of having congress do it. ok good, you have the structure in place now put it all in context
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Er right my bad. The rest is still true though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:EC was meant for slavers originally What people have thought it meant over time has changed from "gently caress up slavers" to "stop a DEMAGOGUE gaining power" but err it was there to reduce the power of congress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:no it was meant to hamstring congress from picking a president itself and that was 100% the point lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
And it's just coincidence that as a result of the EC, the executive for 32 of the next 36 years was from the biggest slave state (Virginia)?jBrereton posted:err it was there to reduce the power of congress. Right... which the South demanded because......
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Charles Pinckney, South Carolina posted:the most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points. Hugh Williamson, N. Carolina posted:[The South will not support popular election because the people would] vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed. This will not be Virginia, however. Her slaves will have no suffrage.” With no EC, there is no ratification of the Constitution because the South wouldn't have agreed bc they were scared about the North abolishing slavery. QED no? quote:On 11 July 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed the three fifths compromise. It failed to pass (4:6), but a substantially similar motion was passed two days later. then the 3/5ths compromise + EC convinced the South to ratify. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 21:00 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Hugh Williamson, N. Carolina posted:waaaaaaaaaaah the people we won't treat as people don't count as people for voting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:With no EC, there is no ratification of the Constitution because the South wouldn't have agreed bc they were scared about the North abolishing slavery. QED no?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:And it's just coincidence that as a result of the EC, the executive for 32 of the next 36 years was from the biggest slave state (Virginia)? quote:Right... which the South demanded because......
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Al! posted:basic knowledge of us history, i assume Al! posted:ok good, you have the structure in place now put it all in context
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:08
|
|