Fanboy Central

For the Fanboys of the White Sox


    Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Share
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 216
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by alohafri on Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:56 pm

    Read Federalist #39 and #68. These guys did not want the general populace electing the president. Heck, they didn't even want the general populace electing senators. Has it always worked out? No. It failed miserably in 1800 and 1824. 


    They may have been on to something with people like Trump actually being elected, and people like Mark Cuban, Orpah Winfrey, and Kanye West considering runs for the president and Kid Rock running for senate.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 216
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by alohafri on Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:05 pm

    I've just been contacted by the FBI. Apparently, someone in Nigeria wants to give me $1.5 billion. I may have to add my name to the list of potential candidates. I will certainly take advantage of the Electoral College with that kinda dough.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:47 pm

    We are talking about different things.  I am only questioning the unfair apportioning of electoral college votes to states when they ought to be assigned according to state populations.  None of my comments should be construed as complaining about the electoral college or arguing about popular vote.  

    The notion of electing via the electoral college is fine.  It ain't going away.  They just need to recalculate electoral vote amounts according to the population sizes of the states, IMO.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 216
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by alohafri on Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:32 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:We are talking about different things.  I am only questioning the unfair apportioning of electoral college votes to states when they ought to be assigned according to state populations.  None of my comments should be construed as complaining about the electoral college or arguing about popular vote.  

    The notion of electing via the electoral college is fine.  It ain't going away.  They just need to recalculate electoral vote amounts according to the population sizes of the states, IMO.

    To what degree? So that a candidate just needs to win California, Illinois, and New York in order to win the Presidency? Only five times in our nation's history has the electoral college elected someone who lost the popular vote.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:47 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:We are talking about different things.  I am only questioning the unfair apportioning of electoral college votes to states when they ought to be assigned according to state populations.  None of my comments should be construed as complaining about the electoral college or arguing about popular vote.  

    The notion of electing via the electoral college is fine.  It ain't going away.  They just need to recalculate electoral vote amounts according to the population sizes of the states, IMO.

    To what degree? So that a candidate just needs to win California, Illinois, and New York in order to win the Presidency? Only five times in our nation's history has the electoral college elected someone who lost the popular vote.

    You keep deflecting back to the popular vote.  I'm not really referencing the popular vote.  I'm talking about how they assign electoral votes.  One would think or expect that states would be given electoral votes based upon some kind of proportional formula.  Cali, Illinois and NY combine for only about 25% of our nation's population, so I would expect that 25% of all electoral votes (or approximately that many) ought to come from the states of Illinois, California and NY.  Even if they assigned electoral votes the way I'm asking, it would still allow for a candidate to win the electoral college while receiving, hypothetically, as little as 30-35% of the popular vote.  If they assigned the electoral votes as I suggest, then a candidate couldn't win without winning at least 10 states worth of electoral votes or so.  It would definitely require more than just winning the three you mentioned. 

    Does it not bother you that your vote counts only 1/3 to 1/2 as much as residents of small states?  You like it that some lefty liberal in Vermont has 240% of the electoral voting power as you?  or that some right wing tea party nut in Alaska has 240% of the voting strength as you?  I don't.  Figured you wouldn't, either.
    avatar
    sharpy
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 95
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by sharpy on Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:46 pm

    Its my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the Electoral college was put in place by the founders in order to prevent one state with a lot of people, from getting the upper hand and making decisions for the rest of the country, and that by the electoral college, not just one area, or one state at the time, could determine the fate of the entire nation. If that's true, then the people of California's vote cannot be worth the same as the people in Wyoming, b/c if it were, then the electoral college would be no difference than the popular vote and the larger states would dominate both votes. Because of its size, California's voter have to have less sway per vote than a place like Wyoming or Rhode Island. Whether you agree with the presence of the Electoral college or not, the concept makes sense- that in order to become president you have to appeal to many different regions of the country, and not to one dominate one - unfortunately for me, the current democratic party is doing just that, appealing to one section whereas the GOP is appealing to a larger section - and also unfortunate for the country, the people who find trump and his ilk appealing, out number the sane.  The USA isn't a democratic society, its a republic, and not based on the popular vote - we vote for others to vote for us. Senators, congressman, etc ....the electoral college is just another "representative" of the people. 
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:39 pm

    sharpy wrote:Its my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the Electoral college was put in place by the founders in order to prevent one state with a lot of people, from getting the upper hand and making decisions for the rest of the country, and that by the electoral college, not just one area, or one state at the time, could determine the fate of the entire nation. If that's true, then the people of California's vote cannot be worth the same as the people in Wyoming, b/c if it were, then the electoral college would be no difference than the popular vote and the larger states would dominate both votes. Because of its size, California's voter have to have less sway per vote than a place like Wyoming or Rhode Island. Whether you agree with the presence of the Electoral college or not, the concept makes sense- that in order to become president you have to appeal to many different regions of the country, and not to one dominate one - unfortunately for me, the current democratic party is doing just that, appealing to one section whereas the GOP is appealing to a larger section - and also unfortunate for the country, the people who find trump and his ilk appealing, out number the sane.  The USA isn't a democratic society, its a republic, and not based on the popular vote - we vote for others to vote for us. Senators, congressman, etc ....the electoral college is just another "representative" of the people. 

    I don't like the electoral college, but it's there and it isn't going away, but your logic is flawed and I'll explain how.  You can very surely assign proportional electoral votes to the states and it does NOT suddenly become a popular vote election.  For example, if you assign proportional electoral value to each state so that there is perfect balance from state to state in terms of each person's vote equaling the next guy's vote, then you would have half of the population within the top 10 states, whereby winning the 11 largest states would mean you win the election.  You could, hypothetically, win each of those 11 states by one vote each, or by some thin margin, and then lose the other 39 states by wide margins.  In that case, you'd win the presidency but have gotten maybe just 30-35% of the popular vote.  in fact, you could even win 90% of the electoral votes by winning all of those states by thin margins, but then lose the other 10% of the electoral votes by getting killed in those states.  In this case, you'd have gotten about 400 electoral votes, but still have lost the popular vote by a huge margin.  

    None of my complaints in this thread are about the popular vote not having more value.  They are about unfairly assigning greater electoral value to people in small states.  I do not believe that the constitution dictates that the smaller state voters get greater value than larger state values.  If they do a purely proportional sharing of electoral votes, based upon the sizes of the state populations, the same chances will exist to win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote, or vice versa. Grab a calculator and check it out yourself.  This is not a complaint from me about the existence of the Electoral College....only a complaint about how it's being applied.  If we changed it to my way, I could easily demonstrate a way in which one could win 49 states and 99% of the electoral college votes, and still lose the popular election.  And that same possibility currently exists under the current system, too.


    Last edited by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:40 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:46 pm

    Under the current system, I could win 49 states by 5 votes per state.  That would give me 535 electoral votes.  But I could lose Wyoming by a huge margin and lose those 3 electoral votes.  So I win 535 to 3 in the electoral college, but since I only led by a 245 popular vote margin before Wyoming was counted, and since I got crushed in Wyoming, I end up losing the popular vote while winning all but three of the electoral college votes.  

    If we did this my way instead, the same thing would be possible, but I'd win more like 537.5 electoral votes and the other guy would win .5.  And in that case, I would still be able to have lost the popular vote.  

    My only point in this is a desire to more proportionally appropriate the electoral college values of each state.  Does the constitution currently state that we have to give greater electoral college value to the small states?  If it doesn't, don't be surprised to see this face a court challenge soon, as I've heard that there's growing aggravation about this right now.
    avatar
    sharpy
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 95
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by sharpy on Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:27 pm

    Under the current system, I could win 49 states by 5 votes per state.  That would give me 535 electoral votes.  But I could lose Wyoming by a huge margin and lose those 3 electoral votes.  So I win 535 to 3 in the electoral college, but since I only led by a 245 popular vote margin before Wyoming was counted, and since I got crushed in Wyoming, I end up losing the popular vote while winning all but three of the electoral college votes.  

    If we did this my way instead, the same thing would be possible, but I'd win more like 537.5 electoral votes and the other guy would win .5.  And in that case, I would still be able to have lost the popular vote


    I'm completely confused b/c I see no difference in the above scenario - you lose the popular vote in both cases but in one win the electoral college by 2.5 electoral votes?  who cares. 
    In fact, your scenario is the strongest argument FOR the Electoral college - if you win 49 of 50 states, and lose the popular vote, I am confident the Founders would have said this is exactly what we wanted as the majority of the country (maybe not the majority of the people) wanted that man as president.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:07 pm

    I am only making the case that properly proportionally awarding electoral votes to each state won't undo the electoral college system, as you and Kevin seem to suggest.  It would only make the electoral college more fair.

    Nothing that I have said above in this thread is meant to disparage the use of electoral college.  I am only disparaging the way it is being done.

    Does it help if I add that I don't believe a truly proportional use of electoral votes would have tipped the election to Hillary Clinton?  It might have made it closer, maybe 285 to 255, but she would likely have still lost.  I think I'm just interested in seeing the equation for how they choose these electoral college numbers.  If it's not spelled out in the constitution, which I don't think it is, then I believe it ought to be proportional and that it's worth challenging in the courts.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 216
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by alohafri on Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:10 am

    sharpy wrote:Its my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the Electoral college was put in place by the founders in order to prevent one state with a lot of people, from getting the upper hand and making decisions for the rest of the country, and that by the electoral college, not just one area, or one state at the time, could determine the fate of the entire nation. If that's true, then the people of California's vote cannot be worth the same as the people in Wyoming, b/c if it were, then the electoral college would be no difference than the popular vote and the larger states would dominate both votes. Because of its size, California's voter have to have less sway per vote than a place like Wyoming or Rhode Island. Whether you agree with the presence of the Electoral college or not, the concept makes sense- that in order to become president you have to appeal to many different regions of the country, and not to one dominate one - unfortunately for me, the current democratic party is doing just that, appealing to one section whereas the GOP is appealing to a larger section - and also unfortunate for the country, the people who find trump and his ilk appealing, out number the sane.  The USA isn't a democratic society, its a republic, and not based on the popular vote - we vote for others to vote for us. Senators, congressman, etc ....the electoral college is just another "representative" of the people. 

    That's my understanding of it also Sharpy.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:15 am

    alohafri wrote:


    That's my understanding of it also Sharpy.

    I want to know where it says we need to afford more voting strength to a voter in a small state.  The electoral college would still very much work the way it's intended if they were to proportionally appropriate the electoral college value of each state, but would do while also affording you and me the same power on election day as the people of Utah, Vermont, Hawaii and Alaska.  I can't imagine any reason those people ought to have more power than we have, nor should we have more power than they have, as voters.  The electoral college still works the way it's intended under a fairer system.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 216
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by alohafri on Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:24 am

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:We are talking about different things.  I am only questioning the unfair apportioning of electoral college votes to states when they ought to be assigned according to state populations.  None of my comments should be construed as complaining about the electoral college or arguing about popular vote.  

    The notion of electing via the electoral college is fine.  It ain't going away.  They just need to recalculate electoral vote amounts according to the population sizes of the states, IMO.

    To what degree? So that a candidate just needs to win California, Illinois, and New York in order to win the Presidency? Only five times in our nation's history has the electoral college elected someone who lost the popular vote.

    You keep deflecting back to the popular vote.  I'm not really referencing the popular vote.  I'm talking about how they assign electoral votes.  One would think or expect that states would be given electoral votes based upon some kind of proportional formula.  Cali, Illinois and NY combine for only about 25% of our nation's population, so I would expect that 25% of all electoral votes (or approximately that many) ought to come from the states of Illinois, California and NY.  Even if they assigned electoral votes the way I'm asking, it would still allow for a candidate to win the electoral college while receiving, hypothetically, as little as 30-35% of the popular vote.  If they assigned the electoral votes as I suggest, then a candidate couldn't win without winning at least 10 states worth of electoral votes or so.  It would definitely require more than just winning the three you mentioned. 

    Does it not bother you that your vote counts only 1/3 to 1/2 as much as residents of small states?  You like it that some lefty liberal in Vermont has 240% of the electoral voting power as you?  or that some right wing tea party nut in Alaska has 240% of the voting strength as you?  I don't.  Figured you wouldn't, either.

    I keep referencing the popular vote because it is by population that electors are assigned. We have 538 electoral votes in the Electoral College. With the system we have in place, it doesn't matter. We do not elect the president. The Electoral College elects the president. 


    270towin.com reviewed the 2016 election on what I believe to be your math, electoral votes based on population and here are their results.
    https://www.270towin.com/news/2017/01/24/if-electoral-votes-were-weighted-by-state-population-alone-trump-303-clinton-235_442.html#.Wd4pI1tSzIU





    It does not bother me that my vote "counts only 1/3 to 1/2 as much" as residents of small states because I know I don't elect the president. I'm more bothered by the fact that Mike Madigan and crew have rigged the election in my conservative leaning area of the state so that there is virtually no chance of getting a Republican elected to the state government or the House of Representatives.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:37 am

    Cool find, Kevin.  That's what I'm referencing.  You keep saying you don't elect the president, but you certainly do if your vote is the one vote that pushes a state election one way or another.  If Illinois is tipped to one candidate by even just one vote, then all of those electoral college votes go to that candidate.  They way you dismiss the national election, I'm surprised you bother to even vote.  

    Your link is evidence that I'm not asking for us to ditch the electoral college, but only to rectify what appears to be out of whack to me.  

    And yes, I suspect your bitch about gerrymandering is an even more important issue than the one I've been making.  It might be the most important issue of our time.  And if SCOTUS rules that gerrymandering is OK, and that Madigan can continue breaking up the state the way he does it, then you'll see further evidence of why I wanted to see an Obama appointee on the Court.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 111
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by blondy28 on Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:39 am

    The issue I have with the "bigger states...represent everyone" argument is that about half of the residents of California aren't from California.  Putting aside that some folks will say that they're immigrants voting illegally....let's just pretend that half of the voting population there is from somewhere else.  I know a few people who live in California.  Not a lot.  One is from Iowa.  One is from Indiana.   So when my friend lived in Indiana, she was "middle America" and he vote, to the public perception, had value.  She changes her geography, and now she's from one of those big states who expect the rest of us to adopt their warped California values.  There's an argument, I suppose, that people gravitate to the states that have their values, but my Iowa friend is a hardcore Republican.  People do bring their values with them, and I'd venture to guess that if the votes of the Californians were made in the states from which those citizens originate, that some of those middle America states flip.  Dismissing large states as not representative of the rest of America....especially California, where half of the citizens are from somewhere else...is kinda bullshit.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:50 am

    blondy28 wrote:The issue I have with the "bigger states...represent everyone" argument is that about half of the residents of California aren't from California.  Putting aside that some folks will say that they're immigrants voting illegally....let's just pretend that half of the voting population there is from somewhere else.  I know a few people who live in California.  Not a lot.  One is from Iowa.  One is from Indiana.   So when my friend lived in Indiana, she was "middle America" and he vote, to the public perception, had value.  She changes her geography, and now she's from one of those big states who expect the rest of us to adopt their warped California values.  There's an argument, I suppose, that people gravitate to the states that have their values, but my Iowa friend is a hardcore Republican.  People do bring their values with them, and I'd venture to guess that if the votes of the Californians were made in the states from which those citizens originate, that some of those middle America states flip.  Dismissing large states as not representative of the rest of America....especially California, where half of the citizens are from somewhere else...is kinda bullshit.

    Not to mention, Californians are Americans, as are Utahans, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans, and Illinoisans.  If 200 million folks from a combination of only 13 states want X president instead of Y president, then that's about 63% of our population, and I don't particularly care if they are from the city or the country.  Why do we need to afford additional voting power to folks in the country over folks in the city?  What legal principal or constitutional passage establishes our need to do this?  Doesn't the electoral college already afford value to the smaller states?  Doesn't the fact that we give two senators to each state also accomplish this?  Why am I supposed to accept that 55 million country folks' votes ought to have more value than 60 million city folks' votes?  Just because 55 million country folks is more states?  State lines are arbitrary dividers.  Combine all of those podunk states into 3 or 4 huge farming states and now those farming states get less electoral value because they have more population than the Hawaiis and Alaskas of the world.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 216
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by alohafri on Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:52 am

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:Cool find, Kevin.  That's what I'm referencing.  You keep saying you don't elect the president, but you certainly do if your vote is the one vote that pushes a state election one way or another.  If Illinois is tipped to one candidate by even just one vote, then all of those electoral college votes go to that candidate.  They way you dismiss the national election, I'm surprised you bother to even vote.  

    Your link is evidence that I'm not asking for us to ditch the electoral college, but only to rectify what appears to be out of whack to me.  

    And yes, I suspect your bitch about gerrymandering is an even more important issue than the one I've been making.  It might be the most important issue of our time.  And if SCOTUS rules that gerrymandering is OK, and that Madigan can continue breaking up the state the way he does it, then you'll see further evidence of why I wanted to see an Obama appointee on the Court.

    The way I look at it is this. I'm one man. I have one vote. My one vote is going to influence a local election much more than it will the national office we all "vote" in (quotes used on purpose). That's not going to change whether we keep the Electoral College as is, change it to the method depicted in the link I sent (and I looked to see if they had the same thing for other elections, but haven't been able to find it...yet), or a straight popular vote. 


    And only a slight detour, this term limit talk has to end. I never hear anyone talking about term limiting their own representative or senator. It's always someone else's representative or senator. ("Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell, is the poster child for term limits." "Well, do you live where they do? Vote for someone else." "I don't, but don' think they should be in government anymore." "Maybe you should let the people in their district or state be the judge of that.")

    frank bonifacic
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 70
    Join date : 2017-05-05

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by frank bonifacic on Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:10 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:Cool find, Kevin.  That's what I'm referencing.  You keep saying you don't elect the president, but you certainly do if your vote is the one vote that pushes a state election one way or another.  If Illinois is tipped to one candidate by even just one vote, then all of those electoral college votes go to that candidate.  They way you dismiss the national election, I'm surprised you bother to even vote.  

    Your link is evidence that I'm not asking for us to ditch the electoral college, but only to rectify what appears to be out of whack to me.  

    And yes, I suspect your bitch about gerrymandering is an even more important issue than the one I've been making.  It might be the most important issue of our time.  And if SCOTUS rules that gerrymandering is OK, and that Madigan can continue breaking up the state the way he does it, then you'll see further evidence of why I wanted to see an Obama appointee on the Court.

    The way I look at it is this. I'm one man. I have one vote. My one vote is going to influence a local election much more than it will the national office we all "vote" in (quotes used on purpose). That's not going to change whether we keep the Electoral College as is, change it to the method depicted in the link I sent (and I looked to see if they had the same thing for other elections, but haven't been able to find it...yet), or a straight popular vote. 


    And only a slight detour, this term limit talk has to end. I never hear anyone talking about term limiting their own representative or senator. It's always someone else's representative or senator. ("Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell, is the poster child for term limits." "Well, do you live where they do? Vote for someone else." "I don't, but don' think they should be in government anymore." "Maybe you should let the people in their district or state be the judge of that.")
     I agree. The answer to "term limits" is we HAVE them; They're called ELECTIONS!
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:36 pm

    alohafri wrote:


    And only a slight detour, this term limit talk has to end. I never hear anyone talking about term limiting their own representative or senator. It's always someone else's representative or senator. ("Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell, is the poster child for term limits." "Well, do you live where they do? Vote for someone else." "I don't, but don' think they should be in government anymore." "Maybe you should let the people in their district or state be the judge of that.")

    I've always asked why should I want to give up the right to vote for someone I think is doing a good job?
    avatar
    sharpy
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 95
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by sharpy on Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:13 pm

    People do bring their values with them, and I'd venture to guess that if the votes of the Californians were made in the states from which those citizens originate, that some of those middle America states flip.  Dismissing large states as not representative of the rest of America....especially California, where half of the citizens are from somewhere else...is kinda bullshit.


    No its not. You move from bumfuck Indiana to California and your views, desires, and personal needs change. A farmer's kid who goes to UCLA med school and becomes a plastic surgeon on Rodeo drive isn't voting like a farmer...What you felt in Indiana is not the same thing you feel in California. You aren't voting against your current life to preserve a life you left behind - that's ridiculous. Why leave then? 
    I guess I'm slow, but I don't see what the gripe is about the electoral college. Not that its good, or that we shouldn't get rid of it, but what the point of the argument is. Currently, states are given electoral votes equal to their senators (2) and one each for every House member they have - so the larger more populous states already have more electoral college votes than smaller states. In addition, all but 2 states have winner take all electoral college with the other two breaking the votes up based on how the populace voted.  So your vote is actually a vote for that candidates electoral college vote - so you are indirectly voting for the president. If you would prefer the vote being split by percentage, so be it, but on the website I found, no matter how you split up the electoral vote for 2016, the GOP wins. I'm nor FOR the EC, but then again, I can see the founders point of view in that Trump, much to my dismay and disgust, won more of the country than Hilary did, so despite my hate of the final results, that asswipe should be president. Does that mean the EC shouldn't be tweaked, or altered based on population numbers, or whatever criteria you want to use, no, of course not, but then again, the EC is  not "bullshit" and the concept of the EC is not bullshit  - it makes perfect sense even  if it doesn't always give us the results we want. 
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 211
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:24 pm

    sharpy wrote:People do bring their values with them, and I'd venture to guess that if the votes of the Californians were made in the states from which those citizens originate, that some of those middle America states flip.  Dismissing large states as not representative of the rest of America....especially California, where half of the citizens are from somewhere else...is kinda bullshit.


    No its not. You move from bumfuck Indiana to California and your views, desires, and personal needs change. A farmer's kid who goes to UCLA med school and becomes a plastic surgeon on Rodeo drive isn't voting like a farmer...What you felt in Indiana is not the same thing you feel in California. You aren't voting against your current life to preserve a life you left behind - that's ridiculous. Why leave then? 
    I guess I'm slow, but I don't see what the gripe is about the electoral college. Not that its good, or that we shouldn't get rid of it, but what the point of the argument is. Currently, states are given electoral votes equal to their senators (2) and one each for every House member they have - so the larger more populous states already have more electoral college votes than smaller states. In addition, all but 2 states have winner take all electoral college with the other two breaking the votes up based on how the populace voted.  So your vote is actually a vote for that candidates electoral college vote - so you are indirectly voting for the president. If you would prefer the vote being split by percentage, so be it, but on the website I found, no matter how you split up the electoral vote for 2016, the GOP wins. I'm nor FOR the EC, but then again, I can see the founders point of view in that Trump, much to my dismay and disgust, won more of the country than Hilary did, so despite my hate of the final results, that asswipe should be president. Does that mean the EC shouldn't be tweaked, or altered based on population numbers, or whatever criteria you want to use, no, of course not, but then again, the EC is  not "bullshit" and the concept of the EC is not bullshit  - it makes perfect sense even  if it doesn't always give us the results we want. 

    I actually don't disagree with a word you wrote, Tim.  Nothing I've said in this thread was ever meant to be a knock on the EC, even thought I don't like it much, and it sounds like you don't either.  And as you note, reconfiguring EC votes for each state based upon a pure proportion of overall population would be, IMO, a fairer way to do it, but wouldn't have won Clinton the presidency in 2016.  Not even close.  It might have mattered more in 2000, Bush v Gore, but what would have actually mattered more in 2000 would have been getting an accurate recount of the FL votes, since the NY Times did a post-recount with some accounting firm and found that Gore actually won.  

    Not a fan of who won in 2016, but he won fairly and squarely, assuming there wasn't some kind of vote tally interference from Russia or somewhere else.  That's been bantered about, but I've seen nothing to prove it, so we have to live with a sociopathic imbecile for the time being.
    avatar
    sharpy
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 95
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by sharpy on Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:45 pm

    Nothing I've said in this thread was ever meant to be a knock on the EC, even thought I don't like it much, and it sounds like you don't either.

    I may not be a big fan of the EC because the world has changed. People are leaving the rural life, farmers, small towns and moving more to big cities. More people are moving from Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Ohio to live in Arizone, California and Florida, so even tho the concept of having only a small number of states decide an election is not attractive to me , if that is where the vast majority of people live, then those states should decide the election.  Otherwise, it'd be like an empty prairie land having power to elect the president. That doesn't seem right either.  On the other hand, if my candidate had won the EC vote and lost the popular vote, I wouldn't have any objection to the EC - at least not now.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 216
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 50
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by alohafri on Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:39 am

    sharpy wrote:Nothing I've said in this thread was ever meant to be a knock on the EC, even thought I don't like it much, and it sounds like you don't either.

    I may not be a big fan of the EC because the world has changed. People are leaving the rural life, farmers, small towns and moving more to big cities. More people are moving from Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Ohio to live in Arizone, California and Florida, so even tho the concept of having only a small number of states decide an election is not attractive to me , if that is where the vast majority of people live, then those states should decide the election.  Otherwise, it'd be like an empty prairie land having power to elect the president. That doesn't seem right either.  On the other hand, if my candidate had won the EC vote and lost the popular vote, I wouldn't have any objection to the EC - at least not now.

    The empty prairie (Illinois as people keep moving out allegedly) will lose its power to decide an election every ten years as they will be losing representatives in the House, thus lessening their number of electoral votes. The empty prairie of Nebraska had 5 votes.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:32 am