Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by TheChatch, Apr 8, 2015.
Those 400,000 people in Bakersfield should be as important as the 400,000 people in Oakland
Because you refuse to answer my question as to why a politician would give a shit about anything but cities in that system.
You won’t answer it because you know there is no motivation.
At least there’s some motivation in the current system.
People only worried about rural Americans because they know which way that vote swings and imagine that nullifies their vote.
I bet rural voters in Massachusetts, California, New York, Oregon, Washington and others feel different. Still predominantly Red voters in those areas that don’t get the “representation” they apparently deserve from the electoral college.
Using the popular vote as the defining metric makes too much sense but it also assures that it will be difficult to keep a Righty as president so ofc TH and the band think it sucks. You guys would still have gerrymandering to keep an edge up elsewhere and I’m sure the senate would always reflect itself in those states who feel slighted by the EC going away so I don’t see the big deal
Jesus it’s the oppression olympics with you
Yeah they should, but we’re talking about reality of politics here. They want to get elected so they’ll play the game to win.
Bakersfield does not matter at all in a popular vote. It never will matter in that system.
If California ever turns purple it will actually matter.
Because your original statement wasn't reflective of the math that it would take to win the presidency so I didn't take it as a rational argument. It's amazing that you can't see the reflection of your own argument when you make it so many times.
Bakersfield would absolutely be a place a candidate would stump if all votes were equal, it's in the top 50 biggest cities in an economically important area.
Do you see how this works the other way around? If the population of cities were all republicans and believed all the shit you think is horrible and the system of government completely catered to them simply due to numbers?
I’m saying that it works both ways now you weirdo.
The only reason not to axe it is that it protects the right and the right only.
Are you serious?
Hillary got 65 million votes. 85 million people live in the top 10 cities. People within metro areas are overwhelmingly democrat.
Focus on the top 15-20 cities as a democrat and you win the election without getting a single vote outside of those cities.
Did you see me voting for any republicans on the ballot I posted in the trump thread?
I understand their importance in a balanced country. Y’all think they’re all vile evil pieces of shit so you basically don’t want their votes to matter.
First you said 10, now it's 15-20. Better watch out or you might get to a majority of Americans, novel concept.
Maybe the fucking Republicans should, I don’t know, try appealing to the majority of this country. Crazy I know
I said 10 because that’s enough to win, since the majority of the top 50 cities are gonna go democrat even if you don’t campaign there.
not quite buddy I agree with you in a lot of ways and I think I’ve made that clear. I’m just as jaded over the rush to center compromises made by the dems as I am the hard right turn of the pubs. I’m fine with finding a true middle ground here but that becomes harder if one side is weighted firmly in one direction and the other side is just flirting with the other.
A good way to bring the right more center is to FORCE them to appeal to the ENTIRE country, something they absolutely don’t have any reason to now
Why the fuck is it so important to cater to small cities?
Leave the discussion to adults
"Its vitally important that politicians be beholden to overwhelmingly white areas of the country...for reasons."
They should no doubt.
That doesn’t change the reality of the concept of a representative republic.
A good way to bring them more center is to force their hands in states like Ohio where that gun totin merican bullshit is gonna turn off voters and possibly cost the election. Just like the social justice warrior bullshit is gonna turn off other voters.
In the state of Alabama it doesn’t matter though, just like it doesn’t in Brooklyn. Id think you would want democratic socialists to go more center in those areas too but the reality is it’s a race to the left in Brooklyn whereas it’s a race to the right in Alabama.
There's 325 million people in the US. To get to half of that you would need to add up the top 40 metropolitan areas (not just cities but areas), and of course they aren't exactly 100% democratic either so you'd have to go further. Your silly premise presupposes that everyone in those biggest metro areas is of voting age, everyone in those biggest metro areas is legal to vote, everyone in those biggest metro areas votes, and everyone in those biggest metro areas votes democratic.
There’s anywhere from 130-150 million voters in most presidential elections.
You’re right that there would have to be a coalition of the top 40 metro areas to get to 65, but again, a democrat doesn’t need to campaign in those cities when 55-60% of them will vote dem no matter what.
Now how about the coalition of cities a republican must build in that scenario? How many cities is that if the ones with larger populations are running at 55-60% dem without even campaigning in those areas? How many cities of 1 million or below is the republican gonna have to visit to pull together enough votes to win a popular vote?
America just voted 53/44 in favor of one side, sounds like those urban areas you tout as 55% that same side are pretty representative of America.
Imagine if your argument was that we shouldn't go to the popular vote because it would be tough for republicans because their ideals are not supported by a majority of Americans and they would have to dig really deep into the small cities of America to rally the troops to have a chance.
They are representative of America.
But this isn’t a democracy and it never was intended to be a democracy.
It’s worked pretty damn well so far. I know y’all don’t like the latest outcome but that’s no reason to overturn the system.
(As if this is even a possibility. I have no idea why were even talking about it since it would require a constitutional amendment to change which isn’t happening.)
This thread serves as an excellent daily reminder that Republicans are literally worse than ISIS.
personally i don't care about rural votes because the majority of them come from uneducated rubes who don't understand basic knowledge
like how a progressive tax system works
or how nazism isn't a left wing ideology
Yeah, god forbid we abandon a system that has overwhelmingly favored white people for the entirety of this country's history.
Give me a reason for small city residents votes being more important than the residents of Staten Island. Give me a reason why Republicans living in California and New York should continue to have their votes ignored and turnout depressed. Give me a reason why Democrats living in Texas should feel the same discrimination.
When every vote actually matters, every vote will be a focus for campaigns. Texas, California, and New York combined make up more than a quarter of the US population. Give me a reason why we should continue with a system that encourages candidates to ignore an entire quarter of the US population.
Guess you should go live with ISIS to find out for yourself. Experience both sides.
“Large metropolitan areas” wouldn’t determine anything. Individual Americans would.
Nobody is advocating direct democracy. People are just asking for our republic to actually be democratic.
The latest outcome was that an overwhelming majority of Americans (largest in history) denounced the republican party and its leader Donald J Trump.
Sure they would. The values of those in large cities are going to differ from those of rural farmers.
Go get a gun and try to overthrow it ale.
Or you can sit behind your internet that was created by this country in your air conditioned home that was created by this country and whine about how awful it is without a single one of your god awful thoughts being censored by this country.
Republicans and ISIS are the same side. Republicans are just worse.
Give me a motivation to stop ignoring the three most populous states in the country under our current system.
He has to be a troll. No logical person could believe in his views.
I don't wanna overthrow the government, I just want the government to put people like you in forced-labor camps. hth
Go live in a house of Republicans for a month and then go live with ISIS for a month and determine the results. It’ll be a fun experiment for all of us.
Because municipalities disappear when you do away with the electoral college. It now becomes about getting as many American individuals to vote for you as possible. You aren’t trying to “win regions of Americans.” You are actually trying to win over Americans.
Because those politicians would be completely focused on that quarter and ignore the smaller states altogether.
You also ignore that those states are free to delegate those electoral votes how they please. Go bitch at California or New York or Texas for not splitting its electoral votes according to how it’s people voted. Start that campaign. (Somehow I doubt democrats are gonna rally to decrease their electoral votes based on the same principles you’re espousing)
Y’all act like this discussion hasn’t been had by fucking politicians throughout us history. Go read the federalist papers. Protection for smaller populations is the exact reason the senate was created.
Why would I do either of those nearly equally awful things?
Red/blue/purple states become meaningless labels as soon as you do away with the electoral college.
Because populations of cities and populations of states becomes irrelevant. Anyone that believes in empowering individual Americans should want the electoral college to go away.
So does catering to anyone outside of a large municipality.
Again, I don’t see democrats in California calling for their electoral college to split its votes. They’re free to do it.
But for some reason they want “all votes to count” by doing away with the electoral college. I wonder why that is??
Why do you think they would need protection? I wonder what they were doing that the majority of people didn't like.
Maybe you should think about what it is you're defending.
You keep saying this, but they already ignore the smaller states. Quit being disingenuous.
Go back to 10:20 this morning, you're the one who started this conversation you oxygen-deprived grease trap.
You don’t get the entirety of the votes in any city. You don’t “win a city” in a popular vote. You only ever win individual votes.