2020 Election

[Au165]

Let's blow up the agricultural argument real quick. There is a large agriculture industry in California and there is a large agriculture industry in Wyoming, both devote wide swaths of land to this. The difference is a vote cast in Wyoming is 3.6 times more powerful than in California because of the Electoral College.

Why does the farmer in Wyoming get his vote to be 3.6 more powerful than the farmer in California? Why does anyone's job have anything to do with how weighted their vote should be? We have legislators to represent land, the president should be 1 vote for 1 person.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2020, 11:54 AM)Big Boss Wrote: Trump Campaign is now crying about networks prematurely calling Biden because the four key states have not finalized counting yet.

So I guess they want to count votes now.  Gosh I can hardly keep up.

Prematurely calling while there is voting=bad.  Prematurely calling after all votes have been cast=meaningless

[fredtoast]

(11-06-2020, 12:03 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Even if the EC favored democrats I would be in support of it. One vote is one vote for every state, and the majority of the state gets to choose who they're voting for. Since it is a federal system California votes don't bleed into other states like Utah. A mostly country state is going to have different views and problems than a mostly urban state. If someone wants to get rid of the federal system then that's an argument, but I wouldn't support that either.

I have no problem with the EC if it was not a "winner-take-all" system.

And that is up to the individual states, so there is nothing the federal government can really do about that.

I just point out that the concept of "rural v urban" representation in the Senate is not accurate.  The small states are not all rural and the larger states are not all urban/big city.  It just depends on where someone drew a line on a map hundreds of years ago.

[Brownshoe]

(11-06-2020, 12:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then I don't understand your argument.

I thought you were saying smaller population states represent rural voters while larger population state represent big cities.  Since this is not true your argument that small population states need equal representation because "What is good for the CITIES is not always good for the country".  

Why do you support giving urban/big city states like Delaware and Rhode Island extra power if you are concerned about rural areas being underrepresented?

I don't get why people on this forum has to put words in my mouth. I support a federal system, and the EC is the only fair way you support a federal system.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(11-06-2020, 11:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought about this while out riding in the country today. I saw miles of fields getting harvested and thought; that field doesn't get a vote, while the man that works it to put food on my table only gets one, but by the same token 27,000 people live in one square mile in NYC.

Is that "fair"?

(11-06-2020, 11:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Land. Doesn't. Work. Itself.

But I'll take that as you saying that folks living in a high rise in NYC are 27,000 times more important than the folks that feed America.

Not because we're on opposite sides politically, but this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read, in terms of, "voting rights," "voter privilege," whatevertheF you want to call it.

When I look at voting, I see people's opinions being casted for a common winner; inanimate things have 0 bearing on that and why should they?

Your own constitution or whatever, clearly states that, "all men are created equal," not, "whomever owns the largest tracts of land, is worth more than someone else."

I've never seen this kind of mentality in my whole life, until today; just completely out of left-field.

[Dill]

(11-06-2020, 11:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I get the liberal way of thinking is to make it about elitist, but there's a very good chance that the person that owns the land lives in a city. I'm talking about the rural folks that take on the task of feeding America.

Well no, the "liberal way of thinking" is NOT to "make it about elitist."  HannityLevinIngrahamBannonMiller constantly claim this but it is no more than propaganda.  

Recognizing the power of rights and states is not about countering some spurious "elitism." 

And if you want to find "elitists" then start tracking the people who generate myriad legal strategies for restricting and suppressing popular vote.

[fredtoast]

(11-06-2020, 12:07 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I don't get why people on this forum has to put words in my mouth. 

I don't know why people in this forum refuse to acknowledge what they said.

I did not put these words in your mouth.  You typed them

(11-06-2020, 10:29 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Because we live in a federal republic where every state has a voice, and that voice is based off of the population. So bigger states and cities can't just control the small ones by always controlling the executive branch. What's good for the city isnt always good for the country and vice versa.

You claimed the smaller population states need equal representation in the Senate and EC because they are opposed to what is best for big cities, but some small states are urban and some bigger states are rural.

[Dill]

(11-06-2020, 12:11 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Not because we're on opposite sides politically, but this is one of the stupidest things I ever read, in terms of, "voting rights," "voter privilege," whatevertheF you want to call it.

When I look at voting, I see people's opinions being casted for a common winner; inanimate things have 0 bearing on that and why should they?

Your own constitution or whatever, clearly states that, "all men are created equal," not, "whomever owns the largest tracts of land, is worth more than someone else."

I've never seen this kind of mentality in my whole life, until today; just completely out of left-field.

LOL to be fair, most of our founders supported conditioning the right to vote upon property ownership. 

People who owned lots of land were supposed to be more invested in making the system work. 

The Declaration says all men are equal. Our Constitution does not, if memory serves me correctly. Nor does it provide for equal representation of "all men."  

By the way, you Canadians could learn a few things about finessing inequality from us. We can do it without ever mentioning "race."

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2020, 11:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I get the liberal way of thinking is to make it about elitist, but there's a very good chance that the person that owns the land lives in a city. I'm talking about the rural folks that take on the task of feeding America.

This argument makes no sense to me. I don't really see the logic in it.

(11-06-2020, 12:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I go back and forth in my mind on popular vote, but the one thing to remember is each state is sovereign, and it doesn't matter if they have 100,000 people or 10 million people. They don't want to be ruled by a few other states. So if not the EC, then at least there is the senate to represent the state, but now we have people starting to complain about that. Keep going this way and we are going to have two coasts deciding everything for everyone in between.

(11-06-2020, 12:07 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I don't get why people on this forum has to put words in my mouth. I support a federal system, and the EC is the only fair way you support a federal system.

I'm going to kind of address these both (and some other posts) in this way. We have a federalist system, yes. However, our federalist system is not a neat and tidy straight line system like they teach in high school government. Federalism is a mess. It has evolved over the years from dual federalism at the founding to things like marble cake, picket fence, etc. The point here is that federalism is messy and isn't really what most people think it is.

The biggest thing to keep in mind with this, though, is that the federal government grew. It grew in the Progressive era and then under FDR it became the bureaucracy we all know and love. The role of the POTUS is to run this government, this federal bureaucracy, and represent it around the world. The president is not in charge of the governors, they're not in charge of the states in any way, really. The president is in charge of the federal bureaucracy which is a government of, by, and for the people of this country. Not the states; the people. The EC was a compromise from the start and it had some value among a citizenry that was never going to hear or see the POTUS because it was a far-away figure. But in the modern era, with our modern government, those truths are no longer there. The EC is an antiquated system that does nothing but over-complicates our elections and makes our system less representative of the people. The majority in both major parties as well as independents knew this prior to 2016.

[Brownshoe]

(11-06-2020, 12:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know why people in this forum refuse to acknowledge what they said.

I did not put these words in your mouth.  You typed them




You claimed the smaller population states need equal representation in the Senate and EC because they are opposed to what is best for big cities, but some small states are urban and some bigger states are rural.

No I didn't say anything about smaller population states. I said the country and cities. You're still putting words in my mouth.

[Au165]

(11-06-2020, 12:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  The EC was a compromise from the start and it had some value among a citizenry that was never going to hear or see the POTUS because it was a far-away figure. 

This is the thing people never talk about, the context of how the decision was made. They had to get a system put in place that they could get everyone to agree on and it required compromises. A lot of the compromises were made over issues that aren't issues anymore today. Too often we idolize the framers and the 230 year old document as some sort of magical and infallible thing but in reality, they were just guys trying to make things work the best they could at that time.

It's funny they actually never expected the EC to carry the day all that often. They figured 19 out of 20 times with three choices no one would get a majority and they'd go to the house, which is how they got the smaller states on board. The whole thing kind of fell apart though with the two-party system and the EC determining the election essentially every time. If they knew we'd end up in a two-party system like we have today there is absolutely no way they'd have built the system as they did, in fact, many realized it later on but it was too late.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-06-2020, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Doesn't seem elitist at all to me. What do you tell the farmer? Hey we need you to work all this land, but see those 20 people living in that apartment, they have 20 times the voting power as you.

Hey I live in a townhouse complex with 6 other families but I work in the oil industry and they don't. I should have more voting power than them because they all rely on my job to get to their job. 

That farmer is one guy, same as me, same as you. Should Ted Nuget get more votes because of how much land he owns despite the fact he doesn't work it?

No. Land doesn't vote. Jobs don't vote. Hardship in life doesn't vote. People vote. Period. End game. No more bad faith arguments. Ya done.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(11-06-2020, 12:19 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL to be fair, most of our founders supported conditioning the right to vote upon property ownership. 

People who owned lots of land were supposed to be more invested in making the system work. 

The Declaration says all men are equal. Our Constitution does not, if memory serves me correctly. Nor does it provide for equal representation of "all men." 

By the way, you Canadians could learn a few things about finessing inequality from us. We can do it without ever mentioning "race."

Hence why I said, "or whatever."

In terms of the last sentence, I'm not sure what you mean; are you saying that whenever we talk about inequality, it ONLY pertains to race?

'cause most of the discussions I've been involved with, among peers, make inequality a bit more than race (women's rights, financial status, LGBT are just as important in the equality discussions that I've has all through school and University {and adulthood}, as race is).

Or did what you say completely go over my head and I misinterpreted it?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-06-2020, 11:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Land. Doesn't. Work. Itself.

But I'll take that as you saying that folks living in a high rise in NYC are 27,000 times more important than the folks that feed America.

27,000 votes > 1 vote

[Yojimbo]

I guess if working land gets you a vote, all those undocumented seasonal immigrant workers get to vote now.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-06-2020, 11:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is the exact type of post that should be unilaterally rebuked in this forum. it's only intent is to incite and a clear violation.

You did unilaterally rebuked it. Good job.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-06-2020, 11:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I get the liberal way of thinking is to make it about elitist, but there's a very good chance that the person that owns the land lives in a city. I'm talking about the rural folks that take on the task of feeding America.

This is the type of post that should be universally (not unilaterally) rebuked because it’s meant to incite.

BTW, my vote should count more than your’s because I know the difference between universally and unilaterally and can use them in a sentence correctly.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-06-2020, 11:58 AM)Nately120 Wrote: All I'll say is in 2016 I lived in an apartment when I voted...in 2020 I own land with trees and a stream and everything. I am now more important. You're welcome everyone.

Have you enacted prima nocta, my lord?

[Dill]

(11-06-2020, 12:49 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Hence why I said, "or whatever."

In terms of the last sentence, I'm not sure what you mean; are you saying that whenever we talk about inequality, it ONLY pertains to race?

'cause most of the discussions I've been involved with, among peers, make inequality a bit more than race (women's rights, financial status, LGBT are just as important in the equality discussions that I've has all through school and University {and adulthood}, as race is).

Or did what you say completely go over my head and I misinterpreted it?

No, inequality doesn't only pertain to race.

I'm just highlighting that as one area in which the US has been a political innovator in finding ways to maintain inequality while taking great trouble never to mention the actual ground of that inequality. 

That's how we have reached this odd political juncture at which people who still recognize racial inequality can be called the "real" racists.

All those other inequalities are important and need addressing, but racism has been dominant concern--and dominant denial--in our history.

[NATI BENGALS]

So these vertical farms that have robot workers? I’m confused. Do the robots get votes?

Or these morons working in food factories? They are feeding America. But some of them live with multiple other people in small apartments. Maybe there is a way we can make America great again and bring that 3/5s rule back to the EC for these types.