is it time to exchange the electoral college for the popular vote

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fat lot of fucking fun you are!

No data here either? Surely you can find it?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What's the matter Mutt... no more funny comments to avoid the facts?

 

[evince]

when someone has a killer fact to back their postion they are willing to repeat it at every chance.

why not repeat the facts you claim instead of goading a person who is not here

 

[Mott the Hoople]

when someone has a killer fact to back their postion they are willing to repeat it at every chance.

why not repeat the facts you claim instead of goading a person who is not here

Cause he can't. He's like PiMP. You show him incontrivertable facts and he just keeps blabbering in circles.

 

[evince]

yeap hes been doing it for the decade Ive known him

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No it wouldn't. It would do just the exact opposite. You'd give overwhelming political influence and representation to the least populated sections of the nation. That's neither fair or democratic. If you apportioned the electoral votes in the States according to congressional districts (which is what the electoral votes/college is based on) than you would have gaurenteed that Mitt Romney would have won the Presidential election despite losing the popular vote by a substantial margin. That's neither fair or Democratic. For example, in Ohio, and this is true in most States, we have 18 congressional districts. Seven of those districts represent urban areas of the state were 2/3rd of the population reside. Eleven of those districts are in rural regions of the State and account for 1/3 of the population. So dividing the electoral votes proportionately between congressional districts would give 1/3 of the population the deciding votes. Rural regions in our State are already grossly over represented as they are nationally . So dividing the electoral votes of each State proportionately would give rural regions absolute control of the Government. So proportional distribution of electoral votes in each state is a bad idea, it's undemocratic and it's grossly unfair to urban/suburban regions.

Under that scenario during the last election Mitt Romney would have won most of Ohio's electoral votes despite losing the popular vote by a substantial margin.

Actualy they don't. In most States rural regions have nearly a 2 to 1 advantage in representation over urban/suburban regions. Rural areas are grossly over represented already. That is they have 2/3 of the political influence while having far less than half the population. In most midwest, southern and western states rural regions represent 1/3 of the population but have 2/3 or more of the political representation. Cities and urban areas do in fact need more political representation.

Link us up to the population by district in OH... Because the last time you said that, i showed u data on the pop in each district and u were wrong

Now you make the same claim for most states... Again... Link us to your data

Mutts claim seems to be nonsense... Each district should roughly have about 710k in population... According to 2010 census.

http://www.publicmapping.org/resour...census-statistics#TOC-Congressional-Districts

Never mind... found it... and it makes you claims look utterly foolish.

Take a look at the two smallest districts by voting age population and total population... they are significantly above the average for minority voting. Somehow I doubt those are rural districts Mutt.

The remaining districts are pretty damn close in voting population and total population. So you are completely misinformed.

You did? Dude. Ohio has a poulation of 11.5 million people. Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus metropolitan regions represent around 6 million alone. Then you have the Dayton Region, Akron/Canton region and the Toledo Region. Those represent nearly 1.5 million more. Those regions only account for 7 congressional districts out of our 18. That's almost 2/3rd of the poulation in our State recieving less than 40% of the representation.

Dude... I posted the link from the Ohio Census Data. It shows the population by district.

Just SAYING it over and over again doesn't make it true. I showed you data supporting what I said. Show us the data source you are using.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/congressional/Congressional-Statewide.pdf

A link to your districts...

I posted a link to the size of the districts. While that is the largest district, it is not that much more than the others.

http://www.publicmapping.org/resour...census-statistics#TOC-Congressional-Districts

And again, the smallest districts are the two with the most minority voters... hence they are protecting them more.

I stand corrected. Rural areas are over represented in the US Senate and the Electoral college but not House elections.

How are they over represented in the electoral college? Each district is to have roughly a population of 710k. So each district has a similar number of population and typically of voters.

The states are awarded electoral votes based on the House seats they have. So again... what data are you using to suggest rural areas are over represented? As I showed you with Ohio... it is the cities (especially areas with higher numbers of minority voters) that are over represented due to have the two SMALLEST districts in Ohio.

So again Mutt... WHAT data are you looking at that supports your claim?

Because duffus the #of electoral votes a state has is equal to the #of representatives +senators giving over representation to the less populated states.

For example Wyoming has a electoral vote distribution of around 400,000 people to each electoral vote where as California has around 800,000 peope to each electoral vote. So the electoral college does give disproportionate representation to rural/less populated States.


http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/05/basics-how-overrepresented-are-rural.html
http://progressivevalues.blogspot.com/2005/10/electoral-college-is-over.html

That is correct and you may have noticed I voted to keep the electoral college.....that doesn't change the fact that the elctoral college does indeed overrepresent rural/less populated States.

As for the Senate. That's the real source of disparity in our system. As you said, the founding fathers gave each State two Senators to prevent larger population STates from dominating smaller population States. But can you honestly say that our Founding fathers visualised the huge population disparities of different regions? This is where rural and less populated States are greatly over represented in our System.

I don't have that much of a problem with the Electoral college as it does provide extra representation. It has had it's consequences as 3 times Republicans have won the electoral college while losing the popular vote because rura/less populated regions are over represented. That is obviosly undemocratic and 2 of those Republican Presidents elected under those circumstances turned out to be two of the worst in our nations history.

And while you do have a point that the founding fathers provided for 2 Senators for each State to assure that States with larger/urban populations do not, as you said "Run Roughshod" over the less populated/rural States, as I said they did not envision the current population disparity where the exact opposite has occurred. We have a situation where the rural/less populated States are running roughshod over the larger more populated States and the Cities, the most economicaly productive regions in our nation are the ones that get shafted and end up paying for this disparity (though that's certainly not unique to the USA).

What really is needed isn't reform to the Electoral College. We need Senate Reform. Look at the Senate, our nations most undemocratic institutions history. For example, a minority of Senators representing between 10 to 15% of the population held up equal rights laws after WWII for nearly 20 years.

So maybe it's time we discussed Senate reform so that the rural States are prevented from running roughshod over the larger more populous States?

Here's what I would suggest. A constitutional ammendment that would apportion Senators as follows.

States with less than a million in population recieve 1 Senator.
States with populations between 1 and 10 million recieve 2 Senators.
States with populations over 10 million recieve 3 Senators.

That way the intent of our founding fathers is preserved and this rediculous situation where a minority in the less populated regions stall our nations economic and political progress is ended.

Alternatively, I am also for a constitutional ammendment that outlaws the filibuster. Which permits a minority of Senators reprenting a small minority of the population from stalling economic and political progress as has been going on for far too long.

So now you are changing your story? It is now that sparsely populated states have greater representation due to the minimum of 3 electoral votes per state (one for each member of Congress)?

So now it is NOT rural areas as you proclaimed?



CA has about what the average is supposed to be (actually just under)... it is supposed to be about 710 per district. CA is at 677k per district per the 2010 census data. So CA is over represented.

That said... Delaware, Maine, NH, Rhode Island, Vermont... how about you tell us what theirs are? You want to pretend it is just the mountain states or 'rural' areas. You are wrong on all counts.

LMAO... NO, it does not over represent rural areas. No matter how much you keep trying to spin that crap. Yes, it does over represent the least populated states. Many of which are in the Northeast + Hawaii. You calling Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Delaware, Rhode Island and New Hampshire 'rural' states?



I have no idea what they visualized given that many of the states weren't even US territories when they designed the system. The Louisiana purchase was at least a decade AFTER the Senate was created. The war between TX and Mexico wasn't until 4 decades later.

So no... I doubt they knew how large this country would grow. But you know what... it doesn't matter... the design is still the same. It does not allow heavily populated areas to dominate. That is what the House is for. If you don't like it, you are free to move to one of the states that is more sparsely populated if you wish.



Again... NH, Maine, Delaware, RI, Vermont, Hawaii... out of those over represented states... how many are ever in danger of going Rep? NH and maybe one or two of Maines electoral votes? Yeah... so shut the fuck up about it. You pretend it is just conservative states... but it is not.



North Dakota is one of the least populated states and one of the biggest economic producers per capita thanks to their oil. Adjust the per capita GDP per region by cost of living. You will quickly find the disparity is not what you think it is.



no, we do not. You want the Senate to resemble the House more closely. That is exactly what we do not need.



Again, there are just as many sparsely populated states in the NE as there are anywhere. But you want to ignore that because you want to continue looking down on 'other' regions.

So Mutt... you were wrong that

1) Rural states are over represented
2) That OH's rural areas are over represented relative to the urban population, in reality it is the reverse.
3) While sparsely populated states are over represented, many of them are very BLUE states.... Hawaii, Vermont, NH, Maine, RI, Delaware

AS for the MOST over represented... look to the District of Columbia.

Someone should probably tell him that Dolly wouldn't approve of that!!

Darla.....Freak couldn't spank someone if he was the last Greek Boy on campus.

Cause he can't. He's like PiMP. You show him incontrivertable facts and he just keeps blabbering in circles.

Tell us AGAIN which one of us hasn't backed his position with data Mutt...

Here again is the link to the electoral college and population of each state...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/2012-Electoral-Votes-By-State.htm

The bolded above are Mutts claims that have been proven wrong by subsequent links to the ACTUAL data.

Note his final responses all avoid acknowledging any of the links to data.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So tell us again Desh and Mutt... which one of those links did you miss in this short 120 post thread? Let me guess, you both will run away now?

Which are your smallest districts by population In Ohio again Mutt? Rural or Urban? You said rural... the actual data link above says URBAN

Why do you call sparsely populated states rural Mutt? Then only refer to those sparsely populated states that trend Rep? Why do you ignore the ones that vote Dem Mutt?

Every single one of your points was trashed. You pretend the link are not there... why is that Mutt? Taking lessons from Desh?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here endeth the lesson

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Cause he can't. He's like PiMP. You show him incontrivertable facts and he just keeps blabbering in circles.

I've shown you wrong, Mott the Cunt.....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well golly gee... tweedles dee and dumb must have accidently left at the same time...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I've shown you wrong, Mott the Cunt.....

seriously, as a favor to me... find another word... please.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Mutt... you are posting elsewhere on the board... come on out and refute the data in the links I yet again provided. You asked for them... there they are... what say you?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Tell us AGAIN which one of us hasn't backed his position with data Mutt...

Here again is the link to the electoral college and population of each state...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/2012-Electoral-Votes-By-State.htm

The bolded above are Mutts claims that have been proven wrong by subsequent links to the ACTUAL data.

Note his final responses all avoid acknowledging any of the links to data.

Dude? Seriously? You need to take some lithium. First I admitted my error on the house of reps...you'd think you'd chill on that concession but you've gone to a rediculous extreme. The electoral college does over represent less populated rural states and the Senate grossly over represents them. Prove me wrong. Now go get a life.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

yeap hes been doing it for the decade Ive known him

Pretty fuckng annoying isn't it? I'm going to threaten to only write responses in poems in the next Were Wolf game if he doesn't stop it. LOL

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Lithium is an overreaction. Superfreak needs to smoke a joint or go get laid with Grind, who needs a gf himself.

Next!

I can fix everyone on this board, step up!

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Pretty fuckng annoying isn't it? I'm going to threaten to only write responses in poems in the next Were Wolf game if he doesn't stop it. LOL

OMG I totally forgot about that. I LOVED that!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

OMG I totally forgot about that. I LOVED that!

Certainly one of my better moments. I was amazed I lasted as long as I did that round.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Lithium is an overreaction. Superfreak needs to smoke a joint or go get laid with Grind, who needs a gf himself.

Next!

I can fix everyone on this board, step up!

He needs to do something. Hell he's been stalking me in other threads to come over and bear witness to his spastic colon.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Lithium is an overreaction. Superfreak needs to smoke a joint or go get laid with Grind, who needs a gf himself.

Next!

I can fix everyone on this board, step up!

Well.....I do agree that Freak needs to get laid.....but I don't think Freak is Grinds type.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dude? Seriously? You need to take some lithium. First I admitted my error on the house of reps...you'd think you'd chill on that concession but you've gone to a rediculous extreme. The electoral college does over represent less populated rural states and the Senate grossly over represents them. Prove me wrong. Now go get a life.

Lmao... Again... It over-represents states with low populations. Again... Do you consider DC, Hawaii, Vermont, NH, DE, RI to be 'rural'???

Of course you dont. But you want to keep pretending, so once again you ignore all of the links that DO prove you wrong. You then try to divert the topic over to the Senate. Lets also not forget your pathetic attempts to paint me as 'crazed/upset etc...' all because you want to avoid the FACT. That the electoral votes are based on population. You also want to pretend rural areas are overrepresented... The FACT is, they are not.

I have provided the data proving you wrong multiple times... You just continue to run away