If Trump wins legitimately will you accept the victory?

hanimmal said:
I still think that the obviously missing part of the above analysis is that it just focuses on the 'General election'. If you combine the importance of the primary it would even out.

I don't know how a popular vote would not just wind up with politicians pandering to the highest population centers.
Click to expand...
80% of the people who live in the US, live in urban areas.

I do not see why 20% of the people in the US should have a larger say in who should be prez.
 
Fogdog said:
80% of the people who live in the US, live in urban areas.

I do not see why 20% of the people in the US should have a larger say in who should be prez.
Click to expand...
I don't think they technically have a larger smaller say.

Only that they get pooled by their state as a percent of their states population compared to the entire nations.

We fix states ability to screw their citizens out of being able to easily vote and it fixes the EC/popular vote debate.

But I could see why Utah for example (out of my ass) might not want to have a very small voice when it comes to something that is important to their citizens. Funding for roads/electrical grid etc all is expensive to the rural areas, and if some politician came in and promises everything to city dwellers who would care enough if funding was removed form rural Americans ability to access the benefits of our nation.

Again I am not some EC fanatic, I just think on the list of priorities this is far down the list that it is not worth trying to worry about it before just passing national standards on voter access in states.
 
hanimmal said:
I don't think they technically have a larger smaller say.

Only that they get pooled by their state as a percent of their states population compared to the entire nations.

We fix states ability to screw their citizens out of being able to easily vote and it fixes the EC/popular vote debate.

But I could see why Utah for example (out of my ass) might not want to have a very small voice when it comes to something that is important to their citizens. Funding for roads/electrical grid etc all is expensive to the rural areas, and if some politician came in and promises everything to city dwellers who would care enough if funding was removed form rural Americans ability to access the benefits of our nation.

Again I am not some EC fanatic, I just think on the list of priorities this is far down the list that it is not worth trying to worry about it before just passing national standards on voter access in states.
Click to expand...
In the election for president, the EC makes a person's vote in Montana hold more voting power than a person's vote in California. I see no reason why the small number of people living in rural areas should have more say than the 80% of people who live in urban ones. The Senate is already skewed to small states. Let the Senate be the place where minority voters' voices are given more weight. Let the President of the United States be just that. We've already had two minority presidents this century and they both turned out to be lemons.
 
Fogdog said:
In the election for president, the EC makes a person's vote in Montana hold more voting power than a person's vote in California. I see no reason why the small number of people living in rural areas should have more say than the 80% of people who live in urban ones. The Senate is already skewed to small states. Let the Senate be the place where minority voters' voices are given more weight. Let the President of the United States be just that. We've already had two minority presidents this century and they both turned out to be lemons.
Click to expand...
How does the EC votes work? I thought that it was (population of state/population of nation )*some number to get to 520something for those states EC votes. If I am wrong it is because this is untrue I believe.

If that is the case 1 person's vote would be (1/population of their state )*EC votes for their state, or (1/population of the state)*(population of state/Population of nation)*x anyway you slice it that ends up being a person is 1/population of nation.

It is the voter suppression in the states that screws up the EC/Popular vote power structure.
I am ok to be wrong,and didn't break out a pencil/paper to double check my math, but pretty sur it is right just by thinking it through. But I am also tired AF, but pretty sure I looked at this like 3 times last time we talked about it.

Also the census screws everything up too, so that needs to be cleaned up too. No question our voting is a mess.
 
Last edited:
hanimmal said:
How does the EC votes work? I thought that it was (population of state/population of nation )*some number to get to 520something for those states EC votes. If I am wrong it is because this is untrue I believe.

If that is the case 1 person's vote would be (1/population of their state )*EC votes for their state, or (1/population of the state)*(population of state/Population of nation)*x anyway you slice it that ends up being a person is 1/population of nation.

It is the voter suppression in the states that screws up the EC/Popular vote power structure.
I am ok to be wrong,and didn't break out a pencil/paper to double check my math, but pretty sur it is right just by thinking it through. But I am also tired AF, but pretty sure I looked at this like 3 times last time we talked about it.

Also the census screws everything up too, so that needs to be cleaned up too. No question our voting is a mess.
Click to expand...
The number of EC delegates awarded to each state is the number of Senators and Representatives for each state.

Montana has 3. 516,000 votes cast in 2016; 172000 voters per EC vote

California has 55. 14,181,000 votes cast in 2016; 257,836 voters per EC vote.

There are 8 other states* with 3 EC votes and voters in those states all have higher leverage in determining who is our president than voters in California, the most populous state in the country. It matters who is prez and the choice should be by popular vote where every persons vote matters just as much as anybody else's.

*Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming
 
In a thousand years will your "should be" hold up? I'm not so sure. Maybe the should be is to create a country with equal opportunity regardless of where you live. What's utopia in a thousand years? That's what I like about you fog, no humility.
 
DaFreak said:
In a thousand years will your "should be" hold up? I'm not so sure. Maybe the should be is to create a country with equal opportunity regardless of where you live. What's utopia in a thousand years? That's what I like about you fog, no humility.
Click to expand...
funny, I don't like you one bit.

A landlord wouldn't understand this but healthy democracies are based upon the principle of one person one vote.
 
He forgot all those missing children from the Frump trade ring. Where are they? Why can't they be located? Seems like the kettle hiding behind a fake pot. Arrest all criminals. Don't call criminal until proven. Flip the script and put frumps circles to the same smell test. Bet you puke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top