First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Ideas for electoral reform in the U.S.?
18720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

Solefyre wrote:





Although honestly, I would rather just see the country divided in half. Democrats/Liberals can have the east side, and Republicans/Conservatives can have the west. Clearly the country is too divided to be effectively governed by one person.


how about mexico takes back California, and Canada takes back the north

Emtro 
1563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

Solefyre wrote:
Although honestly, I would rather just see the country divided in half. Democrats/Liberals can have the east side, and Republicans/Conservatives can have the west. Clearly the country is too divided to be effectively governed by one person.


This is the problem. The country isn't governed by one person! The office of the president has long exceeded it's power and that's one of the many reasons people voted for Trump. Executive orders aren't meant to be used to make laws. The congress and the senate are our legislative bodies and they aren't supposed to pass frivolous laws.

Liberals want big government so they invested in the presidency so much that it cost them everything. The built up the president's power so they could abuse it and then lost it. So now it is time to whine and complain. Well, whether you find it fortunate or unfortunate, the position of a conservative is smaller government which means the power abuse should be minimal.

Contrary to what you would hear to argue with this, it is the commander and chief's job to declare war (even though it must be approved by congress) and to lead war efforts. This is NOT illegal.

Once again, the only reason to break the electoral college is to create a reason for a civil war that states cannot ignore. This is an effort to destroy the country by outside influence because the DNC can no longer do it from within.
51341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago

Emtro wrote:

This is another point of disagreement then. This is what makes the electoral college meaningful since all states are given 2 votes for senators. The only way to accommodate what you're issue with it is to make those senatorial electoral votes worth like 5 each so all states get 10 votes for their senators. I'm not sure I like that idea but that would be the solution to your problem.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Even if you change how much an electoral vote is worth, it doesn't change the fact that someone will still take all of the electoral votes disproportionate from how the people in that state voted. It's because of this that only a few states can swing the election in either direction and why candidates don't bother showing their faces in any other state. The votes in other states have little to no significance on the outcome of the election since there's usually a clear winner and loser(s).

Take a look at New York and Florida. Two states with 29 electoral votes. Hillary won New York with 59% of the votes compared to Trump's 38%. Trump won Florida with 49% and Hillary had 48%. Hillary's 59% of the vote in one state is equal to Trump's 49% in another. How is that fair? Or how about Illinois and Pennsylvania with their 20 electoral votes. Hillary won Illinois with 55% and Trump had 39%. Trump won Pennsylvania with 49% against Hillary's 48%. Once again, a landslide victory in one state is worth the same as another candidate's narrow victory in another state. It's crazy to keep awarding electoral votes using this method. And that's only a symptom of the other problem of voters for any candidate other than the winner not having any representation in the Electoral College.

The only way an elector can side with a losing candidate, even if it's just 1 against 28 to represent the second place candidate, is by becoming a faithless elector, which is pretty much taboo and political suicide unless the winner of the state's electoral votes suddenly dies.
6151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 20 days ago
It would be easier to do it by congressional districts with whoever having the popular vote for the state taking the 2 senator seats. If you did it by percentage of vote to electoral votes ratios, we'd have to wait until every vote was counted in a state to figure out who gets how many. This means we wouldn't know that night or even the next day who won the presidency.
Emtro 
1563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

PhantomGundam wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Even if you change how much an electoral vote is worth, it doesn't change the fact that someone will still take all of the electoral votes disproportionate from how the people in that state voted. It's because of this that only a few states can swing the election in either direction and why candidates don't bother showing their faces in any other state. The votes in other states have little to no significance on the outcome of the election since there's usually a clear winner and loser(s).

Take a look at New York and Florida. Two states with 29 electoral votes. Hillary won New York with 59% of the votes compared to Trump's 38%. Trump won Florida with 49% and Hillary had 48%. Hillary's 59% of the vote in one state is equal to Trump's 49% in another. How is that fair? Or how about Illinois and Pennsylvania with their 20 electoral votes. Hillary won Illinois with 55% and Trump had 39%. Trump won Pennsylvania with 49% against Hillary's 48%. Once again, a landslide victory in one state is worth the same as another candidate's narrow victory in another state. It's crazy to keep awarding electoral votes using this method. And that's only a symptom of the other problem of voters for any candidate other than the winner not having any representation in the Electoral College.

The only way an elector can side with a losing candidate, even if it's just 1 against 28 to represent the second place candidate, is by becoming a faithless elector, which is pretty much taboo and political suicide unless the winner of the state's electoral votes suddenly dies.


I did explain this in my first post so I won't explain it again. I try not to practice insanity. If you didn't understand the points I made the first time, I'd be stupid to think it will make a difference the second time.

You want to play with the electoral college. Understood.
51341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

Emtro wrote:

I did explain this in my first post so I won't explain it again. I try not to practice insanity. If you didn't understand the points I made the first time, I'd be stupid to think it will make a difference the second time.

You want to play with the electoral college. Understood.


All you said was to increase the amount of electoral votes for each senator, meaning all the states have their electoral votes increased by the same amount. How does that affect anything other than give smaller states even more weight than they have now?
16761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 20 days ago
18720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 20 days ago


this, right friggin here
51341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago


So you prefer the places with the lowest populations dictating how 300+ million other people live?

Not trying to sound condescending. I really want to know why you and many people think this is ok. Your image and many like it paint a vastly different picture from how people actually voted. Most of the voters did not choose Trump. Trump only won bigger areas geographically. The dirt you stand on shouldn't be a replacement for actual votes.
5447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / Tacoma, WA. wind...
Offline
Posted 20 days ago
Simple.

You are born, you get a birth certificate and you are now REGISTERED to vote.
When you get an I.D. card or license you are registered for the voting precinct you live in.
When you are 18 you must vote in the local congressional elections or you will be fined $10 each time you don't vote.
You can make rules and exceptions for poor people.

Here in Washington State your Drivers License is tied to you voter registration. They still ask you if you want to register to vote when you renew. I do not think they should bother to ask just register them.
1807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

redokami wrote:


Solefyre wrote:





Although honestly, I would rather just see the country divided in half. Democrats/Liberals can have the east side, and Republicans/Conservatives can have the west. Clearly the country is too divided to be effectively governed by one person.


how about mexico takes back California, and Canada takes back the north



Well I guess Canada can have the north but given I live in the southwest, **** Mexico, they can't have shit back lol. They can have california back only if its about to fall off into the ocean.


Emtro wrote:


Solefyre wrote:
Although honestly, I would rather just see the country divided in half. Democrats/Liberals can have the east side, and Republicans/Conservatives can have the west. Clearly the country is too divided to be effectively governed by one person.


This is the problem. The country isn't governed by one person! The office of the president has long exceeded it's power and that's one of the many reasons people voted for Trump. Executive orders aren't meant to be used to make laws. The congress and the senate are our legislative bodies and they aren't supposed to pass frivolous laws.

Liberals want big government so they invested in the presidency so much that it cost them everything. The built up the president's power so they could abuse it and then lost it. So now it is time to whine and complain. Well, whether you find it fortunate or unfortunate, the position of a conservative is smaller government which means the power abuse should be minimal.

Contrary to what you would hear to argue with this, it is the commander and chief's job to declare war (even though it must be approved by congress) and to lead war efforts. This is NOT illegal.

Once again, the only reason to break the electoral college is to create a reason for a civil war that states cannot ignore. This is an effort to destroy the country by outside influence because the DNC can no longer do it from within.


I know the EU isn't the best example right now, but why can't we be US West and US East, people can choose to either live with the people of similar political ideology or accept being the minority on the other side. We can still act as a whole for global purposes, just with two separate leaders. Hell, maybe three leaders, two domestic leaders (one for each side) and a foreign leader, who deals with all our foreign affairs and relations. I'm sure there is someway that could be planned out to be a working system.
14924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 20 days ago
^ This is the dumbest idea posed all thread. What about the people who live in those areas whose ideology doesn't fit? Do you mean to tell them that they'd have to quit their jobs and move just so they could fit? What about those couples who have different ideologies? Do you tell them to separate so that they can live where people share their values? Clearly you've given this notion little thought.
97986 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago
Pulled from: MISES INSTITUTE
Austrian Economics, Freedom, & Peace

Home | Blog | Why Some "Flyover States" Switched to Trump
Why Some "Flyover States" Switched to Trump

Tags Money and BanksU.S. EconomyU.S. HistoryMoney and Banking
11/11/2016Ryan McMaken

In recent articles and interviews, David Stockman has noted the divergence between economic indicators in large coastal urban centers, and those in the so-called Flyover States. The "flyover zone" constitutes those parts of the country outside the handful of major cities that benefit directly from the Fed's easy money policies and the ongoing financialization of the economy at the expense of ordinary "main street" industries.

But just how big is this difference? Looking at median incomes can help expose some of the divergence.

In the past, we have looked at median incomes in the United States overall and found that, by several different measures, that median incomes (both household and individual) are declining in the United States.

But what about growth when measured on a state-by-state basis?

When we do this, we do find some very real regional trends, not surprisingly. In the US overall, median houshold income fell 2.2 percent from 2000 to 2015. Meanwhile, while household incomes have been either flat or growing throughout most of the Northeast and the West Coast since 2000, it has been a very different story in the Deep South and the industrial Midwest. Measured for the period from 2000 to 20151:



Outside the wealthy coastal areas, states with oil and gas wealth — at least as of 2015 — continued to see substantial gains in many cases. North Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, and even Arkansas, have noticeably benefited from the resource-extraction economy.

Not surprisingly, the largest amount of income growth is found in Washington, DC with an increase of 23.5 percent from 2000 to 2015. Over the same period, oil-booming North Dakota came in a distant second place at 15.9 percent. Growth has been more ordinary in the Northeast, although solidly in the positive column, with gains of 5.5 percent in Massachusetts, 4 percent in Pennsylvania, and 5.6 percent in Connecticut.

Other parts of the country fared less well. Nevada has still not recovered from the blow inflicted upon it by the housing bust and the turn away from low-skill service jobs in that region. Their median income fell 17.4 percent from 2000 to 2015. Mississippi, Kentucky, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin all show median income declines of more than ten percent during the period.

Of course, none of this matters for a media and investors who only pay attention to data in the form of huge national aggregates. After all, the national data shows the economy is growing. So everything must be fine.

For millions of people outside the coastal cities where powerful investors and media figures live, however, things are not fine.

Indeed, no one should be surprised that on election day, it was voters from Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin — states that have favored Democrats in recent presidential elections — handed Donald Trump his victory. Even Minnesota, which reliably votes for Democratic presidents, was shockingly close, with Clinton winning by a less-than-two-percent margin.

It remains to be seen if Trump will do anything to rein in the Fed and ease the ferocity of the wealth transfer from ordinary working class households to wealthy Wall Street investors. In any case, the past 15 years have been something of a lost "decade" for many in the flyover states.

Ryan McMaken is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre. Contact: email, twitter.

1.
State level median income data is from the Census Bureau: www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html

51326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

PhantomGundam wrote:



So you prefer the places with the lowest populations dictating how 300+ million other people live?

Not trying to sound condescending. I really want to know why you and many people think this is ok. Your image and many like it paint a vastly different picture from how people actually voted. Most of the voters did not choose Trump. Trump only won bigger areas geographically. The dirt you stand on shouldn't be a replacement for actual votes.


I see an case of TARD here http://www.disclose.tv/news/are_you_suffering_from_trump_acceptance_resistance_disorder_tard/136500

16761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 19 days ago

PhantomGundam wrote:



So you prefer the places with the lowest populations dictating how 300+ million other people live?

Not trying to sound condescending. I really want to know why you and many people think this is ok. Your image and many like it paint a vastly different picture from how people actually voted. Most of the voters did not choose Trump. Trump only won bigger areas geographically. The dirt you stand on shouldn't be a replacement for actual votes.


Or you can think of the very real situation of ALL government grants going to mega cities and the rural areas being abandoned as happens in many countries currently.

The votes they get are proportional to their population so the people that voted are saying how their state as a whole will vote and all of the people in it.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.