Inconvenient fact for trumpanzees

Trumpet said:
I agree with your answer, and that is why I feel that it's irrational to try to govern this country out of the Bible, which a lot of so called conservatives want to do.
Click to expand...

For sure; after all, it hasn't worked for 234 years right? Castro, Hitler, Mussolini and Josef Stalin agree with you. ;)
 
StoneByStone said:
Calm down,
Click to expand...

Sperging.

StoneByStone said:
I'm just pointing out a fact.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you on your uneducated skull. ;)

StoneByStone said:
No need to get mad and scream at your monitor.
Click to expand...

Sperging and flailing.

StoneByStone said:
So by having the electoral college, the elections are rigged for Republicans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the founders knew this when they created it. They said that someday, there will be a Republican Party who will use it to win every election.

Stupid claim; uneducated leftist. :rolleyes:

StoneByStone said:
And policy doesn't matter to the Right, personality does.
Click to expand...

...because you say so. No facts, no reality, just sperging again.

StoneByStone said:
That's why they vote for characters like Trump instead of true "small government" guys like Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

...because you say so. No facts, no reality, just sperging again.

StoneByStone said:
Granted, the character has to at least present himself as conservative, but the actual issues matter far less than the label.
Click to expand...

...because you say so. No facts, no reality, just sperging again.
 
Woko Haram said:
No, it really doesn't. It just means that rural areas don't get completely ignored.

For a long time, Democrats supported rural areas more. That resulted in a lot of Democratic presidents over the years. Because the Democrats have largely abandoned rural voters, they allow the GOP to have certain strategic electoral advantages.

Nothing about the system has changed. So, they shouldn't be surprised when they lose the electoral vote despite having the popular vote sometimes.
Click to expand...

Keeping the rural areas from getting ignored is the argument for keeping the electoral colleges and it's really not a bad argument. But even when Democrats do go to rural areas, they still mostly vote Republican for purely cultural reasons. That's why we have swing states, which Hillary might have won if she didn't ignore them, and we have red states that always go red. No amount of campaigning is going to get rural people in Texas to vote Democrat.

Republicans often say that without the EC, the votes in the sticks won't matter. But without the EC, all votes will matter, as opposed to right now, where only votes in swing states matter.
 
RB 60 said:
It's amusing you telling me and my rural colleagues what our voting concerns are. Issues matter.
Click to expand...

If issues mattered, then the "small government" Conservatives would back candidates like Ron Paul. However, both times he ran, he didn't even come close to winning.
Instead they support Trump who, let's be honest here, is a cult of personality. It doesn't matter that outsourcing has increased under Trump, it doesn't matter that Trump is putting Israel First, it doesn't matter that he couldn't make a deal for the wall, it doesn't matter that he broke nearly all of his promises. All that matters is that he acts the way the Right wants him to.
 
StoneByStone said:
Keeping the rural areas from getting ignored is the argument for keeping the electoral colleges and it's really not a bad argument. But even when Democrats do go to rural areas, they still mostly vote Republican for purely cultural reasons. That's why we have swing states, which Hillary might have won if she didn't ignore them, and we have red states that always go red. No amount of campaigning is going to get rural people in Texas to vote Democrat.

Republicans often say that without the EC, the votes in the sticks won't matter. But without the EC, all votes will matter, as opposed to right now, where only votes in swing states matter.
Click to expand...

If people are annoyed by the EC, what they should advocate is the end of "Winner Takes All."

If every state delegated electoral votes according to the popular vote within each state, then the final tally of electoral votes could still differ from the national popular vote, but it would allow for minority parties within each state to be represented. It would encourage these people to vote more often as well.

The problem isn't the Electoral College -- it's Winner Takes All within each state.
 
guno said:
Like the tumultuous adolescent years of human development, the changes during the teen years of the 21st century disrupted American identity as we’ve known it. These transformations have come upon us quickly, upending long-standing assumptions — particularly among white Christians — about the American social fabric. And as with teenagers, they have created a lot of anxiety and fear about the future.

Of all the changes to identity and belonging, the century’s second decade has been particularly marked by a religious sea change. After more than two centuries of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance, the United States has moved from being a majority-white Christian nation to one with no single racial and religious majority.

The percentage of white Christians in the general population had dropped from 53 percent to 47 percent between 2010 and 2014 alone. Now, at the end of the decade, only 42 percent of Americans identify as white and Christian, representing a drop of 11 percentage points.

In the world of demographic measurement, where changes typically occur at a glacial pace, this drop in self-identified white Christians, averaging 1.1 percentage points a year, is remarkable. Changes of this magnitude are large enough to see and feel at the local level, as church rolls shrink and white Christian institutions hold less sway in public space.

The percentage of white Christians in the general population had dropped from 53 percent to 47 percent between 2010 and 2014 alone. Now, at the end of the decade, only 42 percent of Americans identify as white and Christian, representing a drop of 11 percentage points.

In the world of demographic measurement, where changes typically occur at a glacial pace, this drop in self-identified white Christians, averaging 1.1 percentage points a year, is remarkable. Changes of this magnitude are large enough to see and feel at the local level, as church rolls shrink and white Christian institutions hold less sway in public space.

Since 2010, the number of white evangelical Protestants has dropped from 21 percent of the population to 15 percent. While white evangelical Protestants have enjoyed an outsized public presence over the last four years because of their predominance in President Donald Trump’s unshakeable base, it is notable that today they are actually roughly the same size as their white mainline Protestant cousins (15 percent vs. 16 percent, respectively).

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/2010s-spelled-end-white-christian-america-ncna1106936
Click to expand...

You sure are taking a lot for granted.....like TOMORROW. Only a liberal assumes he will live forever and acts like it. Pompous asses. :laugh: Reality: Your seniors have been WHERE YOU ARE AT RIGHT NOW.....immature punks who think they know every damn thing.....only thing is.....You do not possess the wisdom of your superiors......as you have not nor could never be where they have been, because you are simply to damn young and stupid. Believe it nor not.....one day, IF YOU LIVE LONG ENOUGH...you will mature and grow the hell up.
 
Woko Haram said:
If people are annoyed by the EC, what they should advocate is the end of "Winner Takes All."

If every state delegated electoral votes according to the popular vote within each state, then the final tally of electoral votes could still differ from the national popular vote, but it would allow for minority parties within each state to be represented. It would encourage these people to vote more often as well.

The problem isn't the Electoral College -- it's Winner Takes All within each state.
Click to expand...

As much as I'd love to break away from the two party situation we're currently in, I think the best thing is to just say the person with the most votes is the winner. Like even typing that sentence feels weird because how is that not already a thing?!
 
StoneByStone said:
Well yeah, that's what makes them urban areas. But most of the land is rural. This rigs the elections for the Republicans as long as we have the electoral college.
Click to expand...

The "land" doesn't vote. And the electoral college isn't rigged for the Republicans. One Democratic state with a lot of electors easily outvotes all the Republican states with a lot of land but small population. CA has more electors than the 14 smallest states. The geographical size of CA is irrelevant--it is the size of the population and the number of electors that give it power.
 
Flash said:
The "land" doesn't vote.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the land decides the politics of the people living in said land.

And the electoral college isn't rigged for the Republicans. One Democratic state with a lot of electors easily outvotes all the Republican states with a lot of land but small population. CA has more electors than the 14 smallest states. The geographical size of CA is irrelevant--it is the size of the population and the number of electors that give it power.
Click to expand...

When was the last time a Republican became president without the help of the EC?
Keep in mind that there are considerably more red states than blue states, and swing states are more likely to vote Republican.
 
Ralph said:
You sure are taking a lot for granted.....like TOMORROW. Only a liberal assumes he will live forever and acts like it. Pompous asses. :laugh: Reality: Your seniors have been WHERE YOU ARE AT RIGHT NOW.....immature punks who think they know every damn thing.....only thing is.....You do not possess the wisdom of your superiors......as you have not nor could never be where they have been, because you are simply to damn young and stupid. Believe it nor not.....one day, IF YOU LIVE LONG ENOUGH...you will mature and grow the hell up.
Click to expand...

You go off on such crazy rants and think you actually said something. Wrong
 
StoneByStone said:
Yes, but the land decides the politics of the people living in said land.
Click to expand...

No more than the cities deciding the politics of people living in those cities.

StoneByStone said:
When was the last time a Republican became president without the help of the EC?
Keep in mind that there are considerably more red states than blue states, and swing states are more likely to vote Republican.
Click to expand...

2004

There are more red states because the voters in those states voted Republican. They have more Senators, more governors, and more state legislatures.
 
Flash said:
No more than the cities deciding the politics of people living in those cities.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but close enough. So you see how if the country is mostly rural, and most states are red, the EC helps Republicans.

2004
Click to expand...

Bush was reelected that year and the incumbent usually does get reelected. That's why I asked when the last time a Republican became president without the EC was. Bush didn't get the popular vote the first time.

There are more red states because the voters in those states voted Republican. They have more Senators, more governors, and more state legislatures.
Click to expand...

But there are more overall Americans who vote Democrat. The fact that there are more red states means that with the EC, the system is rigged for the Right, and we don't get an accurate representation of America.
 
StoneByStone said:
But there are more overall Americans who vote Democrat. The fact that there are more red states means that with the EC, the system is rigged for the Right, and we don't get an accurate representation of America.
Click to expand...

That is like saying the large blue states are rigged for the left because those states have more Democrats in them. If one party has more voters controlling most of the states, then that party has an advantage in the electoral college. Now, that happens to be Republicans. When Democrats controlled most of the states, they had the advantage. So the electoral college leans toward the party controlling most of the states whether left or right.

Population movement is giving the Republicans an increasing advantage in the electoral college. The states with the largest population growth tend to be red. As people continue the long-term trend of moving from North and East to South and West the red states will increase their electors.
 
Flash said:
That is like saying the large blue states are rigged for the left because those states have more Democrats in them. If one party has more voters controlling most of the states, then that party has an advantage in the electoral college. Now, that happens to be Republicans. When Democrats controlled most of the states, they had the advantage. So the electoral college leans toward the party controlling most of the states whether left or right.

Population movement is giving the Republicans an increasing advantage in the electoral college. The states with the largest population growth tend to be red. As people continue the long-term trend of moving from North and East to South and West the red states will increase their electors.
Click to expand...

But the president isn't supposed to be decided by the number of states. It's supposed to be decided by the people. Often the people pick a Democrat, but the Republican still wins because we have a system that favors state lines.

And the Democrats controlled most states before the party switch. Really, the system favors Conservatives, which are currently the Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top