Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Fun Fact:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    Need the details of your claim . . . At present all the states Trump has asked to finagle this sort fraudulent behavior to manipulate the election have refused.


    Both Maine and Nebraska have allowed electors to be split between the candidates for decades with the former doing so since 1972 and the latter since 1992.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

      2016, after Trump won the election, He tweeted the above. Him and Michael Moore dreamt about using the electoral college to stop Trump.
      Am I the only one who doesn't see this tweet here?

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Am I the only one who doesn't see this tweet here?
        News Story
        https://www.foxnews.com/media/chris-...on-potus-elect


        Actual Tweet:
        https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...78033619488768

        Comment


        • #19

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


            Both Maine and Nebraska have allowed electors to be split between the candidates for decades with the former doing so since 1972 and the latter since 1992.
            True, but so what?
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
              States decide how to apportion their electors. They could give them all to, say, whichever candidate won majority of counties!
              Some states, at least, have laws against this. That is, they have a law that prevents the reassignment of electors after the election. I don't know of any states with laws against assigning electors by the winner of the majority of counties rather than the popular vote - there may be some, but I don't know. But if a state chose to do so before the election, I dont' know how anybody could claim it illegal.

              The sooner we get rid of this stupid electoral college the better.
              America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
                Some states, at least, have laws against this. That is, they have a law that prevents the reassignment of electors after the election. I don't know of any states with laws against assigning electors by the winner of the majority of counties rather than the popular vote - there may be some, but I don't know. But if a state chose to do so before the election, I dont' know how anybody could claim it illegal.

                The sooner we get rid of this stupid electoral college the better.
                The Electoral College keeps the rest of the country from being little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states. Without it candidates would only campaign in those few states free to ignore the needs or wants of anyone who doesn't live in them. It would literally turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  The Electoral College keeps the rest of the country from being little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states. Without it candidates would only campaign in those few states free to ignore the needs or wants of anyone who doesn't live in them. It would literally turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country
                  There are already only around 6 states which matter. And doesn't it strike you as just a bad system when everyone knew Biden was going to get more total votes but the only question was whether he'd win those six states?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    The Electoral College keeps the rest of the country from being little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states. Without it candidates would only campaign in those few states free to ignore the needs or wants of anyone who doesn't live in them. It would literally turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country
                    Except under the electoral college everything you said is still true. The rest of the country is little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states (the swing states). With it candidates do only campaign in those few states, free to ignore the rest of the country. It does turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country. If you're not a swing state, you don't matter under the electoral college.

                    The removal of the electoral college would actually do a lot to remove what you talk about, because now every state could possibly make a difference. Under the electoral college, no one cares about the small states (except New Hampshire) because they're all reliably Democrat or Republican; you could campaign and campaign and campaign and get 10% more of the vote than your party normally would and you'd still gain not a single elector in a state like Wyoming or Hawaii. But under a popular vote at least some number of votes could possibly be gained. Small states certainly wouldn't get much attention but they'd get more than under the electoral college.
                    Last edited by Terraceth; 11-29-2020, 01:38 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by LiconaFan97 View Post

                      There are already only around 6 states which matter. And doesn't it strike you as just a bad system when everyone knew Biden was going to get more total votes but the only question was whether he'd win those six states?
                      I think that’s the clearest example of how ridiculous this system is.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        The Electoral College keeps the rest of the country from being little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states. Without it candidates would only campaign in those few states free to ignore the needs or wants of anyone who doesn't live in them. It would literally turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country
                        The EC doesn't change that. In 2020, 12 states got 96% of the campaign events. It just changes which states are the focus. The popular vote would mean that the more populous cities woudl be the focus - but isn't that the way it should be? Wouldn't you think it's reasonable that candidates would spend most of their time in the more populous areas?

                        America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          Except under the electoral college everything you said is still true. The rest of the country is little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states (the swing states). With it candidates do only campaign in those few states, free to ignore the rest of the country. It does turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country. If you're not a swing state, you don't matter under the electoral college.

                          The removal of the electoral college would actually do a lot to remove what you talk about, because now every state could possibly make a difference. Under the electoral college, no one cares about the small states (except New Hampshire) because they're all reliably Democrat or Republican; you could campaign and campaign and campaign and get 10% more of the vote than your party normally would and you'd still gain not a single elector in a state like Wyoming or Hawaii. But under a popular vote at least some number of votes could possibly be gained. Small states certainly wouldn't get much attention but they'd get more than under the electoral college.
                          Many of the swing states back 20 years ago are no longer swing states, and many new ones have emerged since then. IOW they change. Plus, candidates still have to pay attention to the four or five largest unless you think they can win without any of them.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                            Gawd, I hate Hollywood.
                            Hollyweird is my name for them.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sherman View Post

                              Hollyweird is my name for them.
                              Been using it for awhile now

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                The Electoral College keeps the rest of the country from being little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states. Without it candidates would only campaign in those few states free to ignore the needs or wants of anyone who doesn't live in them. It would literally turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country
                                All the campaigning would be done in the most populous states, unless the vote was more or less evenly split, in which case every state would be important.

                                And if the vote isn't more or less evenly split, then it doesn't matter whether you have the electoral college or a direct popular vote.

                                In reality, the reason for keeping the electoral college around is that it allows the Republicans to win the presidency with a minority of the electorate.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Mountain Man, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
                                20 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:45 AM
                                71 responses
                                371 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-21-2021, 03:35 PM
                                40 responses
                                266 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 01-21-2021, 09:45 AM
                                34 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 01-21-2021, 09:10 AM
                                4 responses
                                44 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X