peoples votes should count, not the states electoral pts

S

slidecage

CAGiversary!
Feedback
106 (100%)
just looking at the map for the 270 to win win

Cali has 55

compair to

indiana
kentucky
west vir.
colo.
new mexico
north and south dak.
maine
vermont
id.

total 53 votes


so 1 State is more important then 10... and you wonder why this country is so #$#$#$# up ...

it should be the people votes not that state votes
 
I'm betting (with real monnies) on a debacle coming the 4th lasting through till friday...

I hope i'm wrong though.
 
California population: 36 million
Population of other states listed: 24 million

?

I think the point you're looking for is that the electoral college should be allocated proportionally to the popular vote of that state, as opposed to all-or-nothing.
 
[quote name='botticus']California population: 36 million
Population of other states listed: 24 million

[/quote]

:lol: Wump-wump.

They need to have a smiley to show Slidecage's logic dissolving. Although, I imagine it would look something like :fridge:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='slidecage']...

Cali has 55

compair to

indiana
kentucky
west vir.
colo.
new mexico
north and south dak.
maine
vermont
id.

total 53 votes


so 1 State is more important then 10... and you wonder why this country is so #$#$#$# up ...

..[/QUOTE]

# votes in the senate for California = 2

# votes in the senate for all other listed states = 20

There's your parity.
 
[quote name='botticus']California population: 36 million
Population of other states listed: 24 million

?

I think the point you're looking for is that the electoral college should be allocated proportionally to the popular vote of that state, as opposed to all-or-nothing.[/quote]



having an electoral system is stupid, because its very arbitrary who chooses how the electoral map is carved up. and it can be manipulated to serve one political party's gain. its an overly complicated relic from our past and should be changed.


the presidential election should be by popular vote... one vote should equal one vote should equal one vote should equal one vote

who gives a shit which county you are from. my vote here should be exactly the same as a person's vote in Ohio and Florida


everyone's vote should be exactly the same as everyone else's vote.
 
[quote name='botticus']California population: 36 million
Population of other states listed: 24 million

?

I think the point you're looking for is that the electoral college should be allocated proportionally to the popular vote of that state, as opposed to all-or-nothing.[/quote]



electoral college is just stupid though, because its very arbitrary who chooses how the electoral map is carved up. and it can be manipulated to serve one political party's gain. its an overly complicated relic from our past and should be changed.


the presidential election should be by popular vote... one vote should equal one vote should equal one vote should equal one vote

who gives a shit which county you are from. my vote here should be exactly the same as a person's vote in Ohio and Florida


everyone's vote should be exactly the same as everyone else's vote.

its very f-ed up when a persident loses the popular vote but still wins cuz of the electorial college... its just mind boggling that people dont think about switching how the system works....

overall, the general American public voted more for one guy, but because of our complicated system of rules, somehow its twisted so the other guy wins... wtf.



just think about it.
 
[quote name='Hex']:lol: Wump-wump.

They need to have a smiley to show Slidecage's logic dissolving. Although, I imagine it would look something like :fridge:[/quote]


What the fuck does that smiley mean? I always wondered that.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']What the fuck does that smiley mean? I always wondered that.[/quote]

I would believe it's similar to a head hitting the wall... but could be understood as a trap or doom will be expected.

could be where you fell into a trap or you have expressed torture.

all in all, if a fridge did fall on you, it's not anything good.
 
The electoral college is the best system unless we go full proportional representation.

It puts more states into play. In a one person one vote situation, the national campaign could completely ignore at least a dozen more states than they do already.
 
Yes, I agree, they should switch it to a popular or proportional vote system. For instance, once your state turns red or blue, if you were on the opposite side, your vote no longer counts for shit.
 
^True, which is why their are never any rallys or such are held in California or Texas, as those as seen as a Democratic and Republic state respectively.

Being a Californian myself, I don't even have to vote because I already know this state is Democrat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='slidecage']so 1 State is more important then 10... and you wonder why this country is so #$#$#$# up ...

it should be the people votes not that state votes[/quote]

It's by population.

As others have mentioned, if the electoral college were to disappear and the system were changed to total popular vote then politicians would only hit up the biggest states. The most populated states would hold the most clout with presidential candidates in turn garnering more influence once a new presidency is established.
 
Ideally, the state system would need to be blownup and completely redrawn. The needs of people even within their own state can be vastly different, while comparatively similar to others in nearby states. The state lines are rather archaic and arguably the functions they served are no longer needed.
Such drastic gerrymandering, though, is impossible.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']It's by population.

As others have mentioned, if the electoral college were to disappear and the system were changed to total popular vote then politicians would only hit up the biggest states. The most populated states would hold the most clout with presidential candidates in turn garnering more influence once a new presidency is established.[/quote]





[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The electoral college is the best system unless we go full proportional representation.

It puts more states into play. In a one person one vote situation, the national campaign could completely ignore at least a dozen more states than they do already.[/quote]

like all things in this world, keep it as simple and stupid as possible.


who cares about states... one vote should still equal one vote.

let the campaigns ignore states. it wont fuking matter... one vote in Wisconsin is still equal to one vote in FL to one vote in Cali... That's Fair

I guarantee you that the electorical college isn't making things "more fair" rather it provides a complex way to manipulate the results
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the electoral college is the best system for proper representation. if anything we need to get rid of the winner-takes-all way the go nowadays and have 1 vote for each district. that way, a state like california with its 55 votes wouldnt always be blue, itd break down to something like 40 votes to the dems and 15 votes to the reps.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']the electoral college is the best system for proper representation. if anything we need to get rid of the winner-takes-all way the go nowadays and have 1 vote for each district. that way, a state like california with its 55 votes wouldnt always be blue, itd break down to something like 40 votes to the dems and 15 votes to the reps.[/quote]

Sounds better, but really it would only have a slightly more fair outcome I think. You're still not counted if you're outvoted in your district.

The most fair to each person would be just to count individuals and the highest number wins, but it does raise the question of how campaigning would go when high populations are concentrated in certain areas. I don't know if I particularly care about where they campaign though. I still think they'd have to make sure they're doing (or at least saying) what people want or they wouldn't win.

The most ignored states would be the midwestern ones and like Rhode Island who right now only even matter because they're given the minimum 3 electoral votes. But really aren't they already ignored? I dunno if it would really make more places ignored than there are currently.

And (and I'm writing and thinking too much) really there have only been a few times where the popular vote winner and electoral vote winner were different, so I don't see how basing it on popular vote would really change things (unless you think that the electoral college has that big of an effect on where people campaign and that's why they win the popular vote).
 
actully it work both ways. For example California is a blue state but outside of Sacamento, Bay Area, LA, and San Diego, rural California it is pretty much a red state.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Sounds better, but really it would only have a slightly more fair outcome I think. You're still not counted if you're outvoted in your district.

The most fair to each person would be just to count individuals and the highest number wins, but it does raise the question of how campaigning would go when high populations are concentrated in certain areas. I don't know if I particularly care about where they campaign though. I still think they'd have to make sure they're doing (or at least saying) what people want or they wouldn't win.

The most ignored states would be the midwestern ones and like Rhode Island who right now only even matter because they're given the minimum 3 electoral votes. But really aren't they already ignored? I dunno if it would really make more places ignored than there are currently.

And (and I'm writing and thinking too much) really there have only been a few times where the popular vote winner and electoral vote winner were different, so I don't see how basing it on popular vote would really change things (unless you think that the electoral college has that big of an effect on where people campaign and that's why they win the popular vote).[/quote]

exactly.

its not like the campaigning for the electoral system is really focusing on all 50 states either.. they still only choose the few that matter.


and at least for a popular vote... the basic axiom that it is built on remains true: one person's vote equals exactly another persons's vote

no one's vote is worth more than another.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']the electoral college is the best system for proper representation. if anything we need to get rid of the winner-takes-all way the go nowadays and have 1 vote for each district. that way, a state like california with its 55 votes wouldnt always be blue, itd break down to something like 40 votes to the dems and 15 votes to the reps.[/quote]

if electoral college is really the best system for representation...

how can a person receive more votes by the American people for president and still lose....?

does that sound logical at all... if you just sit there for 30 seconds and think about it.
 
[quote name='billyrox']if electoral college is really the best system for representation...

how can a person receive more votes by the American people for president and still lose....?

does that sound logical at all... if you just sit there for 30 seconds and think about it.[/quote]

Its easier for the GOP to cheat that way.
 
[quote name='winterice']Maybe we should add some electoral points for winning the popular vote.[/quote]

nice, but unnecessarily complicated. we need to keep things simple.

just the popular vote. thats all we need.
 
The electoral college is a good thing. It's protects us from stupid people. And since stupid people like to crowd in areas together, this ensures stupid people don't rule America.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']The electoral college is a good thing. It's protects us from stupid people. And since stupid people like to crowd in areas together, this ensures stupid people don't rule America.[/QUOTE]
...
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']The electoral college is a good thing. It's protects us from stupid people. And since stupid people like to crowd in areas together, this ensures stupid people don't rule America.[/quote]

...and who's president right now?
 
[quote name='Indignate']...and who's president right now?[/quote]

:applause: wait.... :bouncy:

there we go... :lol:

indeed, the EC isn't perfect but to go change it would be huge.

this has been debated in 2000 also....... actually every 4 years.. strange...
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']The most populated states would hold the most clout with presidential candidates in turn garnering more influence once a new presidency is established.[/QUOTE]
So 10 states would be chased, as opposed to 4. And they would have significant, diverse populations as opposed to now, where it's hick ass white people. I'm tired of arbitrary, worthless states being more equal than everyone else.

By weight of the college, a vote in Montana is worth 6 people in California. Explain to me how that's fair again.
 
The system we have right now is fine. You can't simply look at the electoral college all on its own. It's part of a much bigger system that keeps things balanced.
 
[quote name='Indignate']...and who's president right now?[/QUOTE]

Doesn't matter. The electoral college is there for a reason. It's to protect us from too many uneducated voters. The founders of the constitution didn't trust people to make decisions on their own, and for the most part, they were right in not doing so.

The electoral college is also good for states where people sometimes can't get out to vote. What if you're in Idaho, and you live 50 miles from the nearest voting station? Some people can't get out to vote, and the electoral college helps by still getting their voice heard, so to speak.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Doesn't matter. The electoral college is there for a reason. It's to protect us from too many uneducated voters. The founders of the constitution didn't trust people to make decisions on their own[/quote]


wtf are you talking about. and also you are denying the uneducated from their vote? who do you consider uneducated. Is this an arbitrary label? if the founders didn't trust the people to make their own decisions. who the hell makes the decisions?


one person's vote should be the same as another's. thats democracy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
problem is say the dem's always win your state... if your a rep. your going to say why should i waste my time .. My vote dont count since if say

500,000 people vote one way and 501,000 vote the other person, you just say those 500,000 people votes dont mean a rats ass

im just waiting for all of the people who PRE VOTED show up the day and try to vote and say

I NEVER VOTED just trying to bring the thing to a halt


if you thought 2000 was bad just wait for next week


QUestion i want to see if anyone knows why

Why do we use peoples name and not pictures ?

What about people who can not read... Why should they not be able to vote
 
If slidecage is against the electoral college, I guess I have to be for it.

Let's say we abolish the electoral college. How about abolishing the Senate?

Is it fair that a small state like Rhode Island have the same number of senators as a large state as California?

Waiting for somebody to have an epiphany.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If slidecage is against the electoral college, I guess I have to be for it.

Let's say we abolish the electoral college. How about abolishing the Senate?

Is it fair that a small state like Rhode Island have the same number of senators as a large state as California?

Waiting for somebody to have an epiphany.
[/quote]



the Senate has the same number of senators as Rhode Island but there's is a proportional amount in the House of Representivies... which is why we have two legislative bodies.



anyway, replacing the electorial college with the popular vote is modifying the method for choosing the president. not abolishing the entire institution. so why would you abolish the Senate?
 
We should abolish the Electoral College and go to a purely popular vote system. Although given what happened in 2000 and we still didn't change the system, I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

For those saying that more attention will be paid to areas with more population, so what? Isn't that what successful politicians should be, representatives of more of the people than the others? Why do we have to make do with John McCain campaigning in Chillocothe, Ohio and Obama in whatever podunk town he's going to tomorrow? Why not New York City or Dallas or Los Angeles?

Why is someone's vote in a swing state more valuable than someone in a state considered safe for either party? That isn't the American way, which is one person, one vote. My vote as a Virginian is much more valuable than myke's as a Kentuckian. Is that fair?

And I do also disagree that more attention will be paid to less areas of the country. Right now the candidates are bouncing back and forth between Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa and Colorado. That leaves another 43 states + D.C. that are ignored.

I think every state, or most every state, has a population center that campaigns would be interested in courting. Maybe Obama wouldn't carry Texas, but you don't think he might want to campaign in San Antonio? Maybe McCain would like to campaign in San Diego? IMO having them go to places like those trying to get thousands of votes out of them instead of Hicksville, PA trying to get 100 votes extra out of there is a good thing.
 
I'm not a big fan of it, or the arguments for it.

1. I don't give a crap about states influence. It's a global world, we need to be one country not a collection of pointless states when it comes to national matters like electing a president.

2. Who care's if candidates don't campaign in every state? The biggest part of campaining is on national TV, relatively few people attend rallies etc. compared to people who just follow on the TV and in the newspaper (national AP stories, columns etc.). So that issue just seems inconsequential to me.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']We should abolish the Electoral College and go to a purely popular vote system. Although given what happened in 2000 and we still didn't change the system, I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

For those saying that more attention will be paid to areas with more population, so what? Isn't that what successful politicians should be, representatives of more of the people than the others? Why do we have to make do with John McCain campaigning in Chillocothe, Ohio and Obama in whatever podunk town he's going to tomorrow? Why not New York City or Dallas or Los Angeles?

Why is someone's vote in a swing state more valuable than someone in a state considered safe for either party? That isn't the American way, which is one person, one vote. My vote as a Virginian is much more valuable than myke's as a Kentuckian. Is that fair?

And I do also disagree that more attention will be paid to less areas of the country. Right now the candidates are bouncing back and forth between Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa and Colorado. That leaves another 43 states + D.C. that are ignored.

I think every state, or most every state, has a population center that campaigns would be interested in courting. Maybe Obama wouldn't carry Texas, but you don't think he might want to campaign in San Antonio? Maybe McCain would like to campaign in San Diego? IMO having them go to places like those trying to get thousands of votes out of them instead of Hicksville, PA trying to get 100 votes extra out of there is a good thing.[/quote]

thank you. its just common sense. we don't need to complicated, extra bull.

one vote should equal one vote should equal one vote.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not a big fan of it, or the arguments for it.

1. I don't give a crap about states influence. It's a global world, we need to be one country not a collection of pointless states when it comes to national matters like electing a president.

2. Who care's if candidates don't campaign in every state? The biggest part of campaining is on national TV, relatively few people attend rallies etc. compared to people who just follow on the TV and in the newspaper (national AP stories, columns etc.). So that issue just seems inconsequential to me.[/quote]

I agree on point 2... which means that they should be just campaining every possible way, but not forced to just pull out... just because they don't need to or it's not worth it because the 2 damn Electoral votes are going for him or not.

it should be by the people.... the vote should count. It's a bit silly to vote by popularity when it's decided by only 538 people.

a rehaul of the fiance reform on elections would be wonderful...
 
How do you propose we even attempt to change it? We could vote, but which vote would count, popular or electoral? Aha! Its a trap.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Doesn't matter. The electoral college is there for a reason. It's to protect us from too many uneducated voters. The founders of the constitution didn't trust people to make decisions on their own, and for the most part, they were right in not doing so.
[/quote]

How does it not matter? You specifically said its there so it "ensures stupid people don't rule America". Well we've seen how much that has failed in the last eight years.
 
[quote name='Layziebones']How do you propose we even attempt to change it? We could vote, but which vote would count, popular or electoral? Aha! Its a trap.[/quote]

lol.

hopefully the next generation is smarter (actually uses their common sense) and figures out how to change it.
 
It's a relic of a bygone era, and is now used by a couple of states to be relevant in a world where virtually nothing else about them is relevant. Seriously, our leader is decided by Ohio? Of all places?

Seriously?

elprincipe is right. How can it be fair that there's years of campaigning now, yet New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston (the biggest 4 cities in America) see fewer candidate visits in two years than Cleveland sees in two days?
 
There are a bunch of white slaveowners spinning in their graves.

In order to convince smaller states to enter the Union, they have to be given a greater measure of power during some parts of the process.

That is where the Senate and, to a lesser extent, the electoral college come into play.

If you abolish the electoral college and several small states such Alaska, Hawaii, Rhode Island or Idaho decide to opt out of the Union, are you willing to send troops there to force them back into the Union?
 
[quote name='depascal22']We're not saying abolish the Senate. Just the Electoral College. The small states still have their equality there.[/quote]

exactly. plus the people in the small states still vote, and their vote is the same weight as everyone else's.


its completely fair ...unlike now where it is arbitrary weighted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top