Electoral College Appeal

[*michaelsean*]

In case anyone is wondering, the electors aren't just random people. They are chosen by the party in each state. Flipping 30 or 40 is extremely unlikely.

And if you want to know why people can't seem to handle this read Lena Dunham's post-election column.The participation trophy generation.

[samhain]

(11-13-2016, 10:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: In case anyone is wondering, the electors aren't just random people.  They are chosen by the party in each state.  Flipping 30 or 40 is extremely unlikely.

And if you want to know why people can't seem to handle this read Lena Dunham's post-election column.The participation trophy generation.

I might dislike Lena Dunham more than I dislike Donald Trump.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2016, 10:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: In case anyone is wondering, the electors aren't just random people.  They are chosen by the party in each state.  Flipping 30 or 40 is extremely unlikely.

And if you want to know why people can't seem to handle this read Lena Dunham's post-election column.The participation trophy generation.

(11-13-2016, 10:53 PM)samhain Wrote: I might dislike Lena Dunham more than I dislike Donald Trump.

I didn't really care one way or the other about her until her, "I can't wait for straight white men to be extinct", post featuring her dad.  I look at my nephews, 3 and 5, and wonder why anyone would want them to be dead.  She's a symptom of a much larger disease and I didn't want to believe just how much it had metastasized.  

[*michaelsean*]

(11-13-2016, 10:53 PM)samhain Wrote: I might dislike Lena Dunham more than I dislike Donald Trump.

Dayummm.  Obviously if I refused to watch any actors because they were libs I wouldn't have much to watch, but there are a couple I can't watch.  Her insisting on being naked in every episode of Girls didn't help either.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-13-2016, 11:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't really care one way or the other about her until her, "I can't wait for straight white men to be extinct", post featuring her dad.  I look at my nephews, 3 and 5, and wonder why anyone would want them to be dead.  She's a symptom of a much larger disease and I didn't want to believe just how much it had metastasized.  

I never heard that on.  Jesus. That's disturbed or evil.

[samhain]

(11-13-2016, 11:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Dayummm.  Obviously if I refused to watch any actors because they were libs I wouldn't have much to watch, but there are a couple I can't watch.  Her insisting on being naked in every episode of Girls didn't help either.

I just don't get her appeal, and maybe that's the whole point.  I don't care.  I find her repulsive.  She just seems contrarian to be contrarian.  There's also the fact that she espouses all of these opinions like she's some hero to the people, yet everyone she picked for main roles on her show got there because of having celebs for parents.  If she was the world's exhibit of American liberals to be judged by, I'd totally understand if people hated us.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2016, 11:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I never heard that on.  Jesus. That's disturbed or evil.

Indeed, both would be my verdict.

http://heatst.com/culture-wars/lena-dunham-wants-to-improve-men-by-making-white-straight-men-extinct/

[xxlt]

(11-12-2016, 10:13 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Because there is no undue influence of sparse population centers.  You're grouping them together, when said "sparse population centers" are, by definition, separated by geography and not prone to as much groupthink.

If the rest of country is 51% Repub, but CA has 10M more democratic voters...then by popular vote CA chooses your POTUS eventhough the majority of voters in EVERY OTHER STATE would have chosen differently.  That's wrong.

Based on population, CA gets a % say in election of the POTUS.  It's voters have an equal say in making that choice.  The margin does not get exported to overturn how another state wants to choose.  The people in FL get to cast a 4% or whatever say in who is POTUS, and it will remain 4% regardless of how many people 3000 miles away in CA vote Democrat.

So when millions more people want X and not Y, we get Y because a handful of people who live in sparsely populated areas want Y. Sounds fair to me!

[BmorePat87]

(11-13-2016, 08:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No one here disagrees with that. The thing is, we've even had discussions about the EC before this. I've been involved with discussions ever since I knew what the EC was and how it worked about how it is an antiquated system and should be gotten rid of. And the 2000 election was before I could even vote. I don't think we should change what occurred with this election, but I think we need to have a serious conversation about the electoral processes in this country. Not just in relation to the EC, but for all of it.

A big assessment I use in the second  is a Document Based Question "Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?". Read 7 documents on it (pro and con), answer questions for each document, and then write your argumentative essay using the documents as evidence. 

I'm going to need to amend one of the documents now, but this is an issue we teach and let the kids develop an opinion about. This is going to be fun to grade this year.

[*bfine32*]

(11-14-2016, 11:06 PM)xxlt Wrote: So when millions more people want X and not Y, we get Y because a handful of people who live in sparsely populated areas want Y. Sounds fair to me!

Unless one understands that these "sparsely populated areas" are known as States

[xxlt]

(11-15-2016, 02:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless one understands that these "sparsely populated areas" are known as States

As opposed to the densely populated areas which are not states. Why do those people in the densely populated non-states even get to vote?

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2016, 08:11 AM)xxlt Wrote: As opposed to the densely populated areas which are not states. Why do those people in the densely populated non-states even get to vote?

Who said densely populated areas are not states?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-12-2016, 02:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's like your favorite football team losing the game and then crying they should have won because they gained more yards; even though every rule states the team that scores the most points wins. Regardless how they are earned. 

Crazy, this is literally the example I was in the process of typing out before I decided to read the rest of the thread first.

The Seahawks got more yards than the Patriots in 2014, but lost the SB because they scored less points. Can you imagine how much everyone would make fun of the Seahawks if afterwards they said "we got more yards, therefor we should have won the SB, I demand a retroactive change in the rules"??? They would be roasted on every forum and new station in existence.

[GMDino]

(11-17-2016, 08:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Crazy, this is literally the example I was in the process of typing out before I decided to read the rest of the thread first.

The Seahawks got more yards than the Patriots in 2014, but lost the SB because they scored less points. Can you imagine how much everyone would make fun of the Seahawks if afterwards they said "we got more yards, therefor we should have won the SB, I demand a retroactive change in the rules"??? They would be roasted on every forum and new station in existence.

Yards don't equal points in football.

Votes equal votes in elections.

I'm not for this change because it sounds like sour grapes.  If someone comes up with a good reason and its approved to change it later that's all well and good.

But a vote is a vote.

A yard is not a point.

More people wanted Clinton than Trump.  Trump just had enough people in the right states to win the EC.  That's the game.

But I can understand people saying she "won" the country wide vote.  You just can't change the rules after you lose.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-17-2016, 08:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yards don't equal points in football.

Votes equal votes in elections.

I'm not for this change because it sounds like sour grapes.  If someone comes up with a good reason and its approved to change it later that's all well and good.

But a vote is a vote.

A yard is not a point.

More people wanted Clinton than Trump.  Trump just had enough people in the right states to win the EC.  That's the game.

But I can understand people saying she "won" the country wide vote.  You just can't change the rules after you lose.

A yard is not a point.

A vote is not an electoral vote.


Perhaps it's the school systems that are failing the country in this situation to proper teach how our system works to it's future voters. That or the process of raising children while giving everyone participation trophies for trying hard has set them up to not know how to handle a situation where they lose and get nothing.

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2016, 08:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yards don't equal points in football.

Votes equal votes in elections.

I'm not for this change because it sounds like sour grapes.  If someone comes up with a good reason and its approved to change it later that's all well and good.

But a vote is a vote.

A yard is not a point.

More people wanted Clinton than Trump.  Trump just had enough people in the right states to win the EC.  That's the game.

But I can understand people saying she "won" the country wide vote.  You just can't change the rules after you lose.

Just like Votes in the right place equal EC, yards in the right place equals points. You can get twice the yards your opponent does between to 20s (New Yprk, California) it means noting if your opponents gets the right yards inside the 20s (FL, WS, PA).

You got more yards, you just didn't get them in the right place. 

[GMDino]

(11-17-2016, 09:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just like Votes in the right place equal EC, yards in the right place equals points. You can get twice the yards your opponent does between to 20s (New Yprk, California) it means noting if your opponents gets the right yards inside the 20s (FL, WS, PA).

You got more yards, you just didn't get them in the right place. 

Not at all the same.

Votes count the same everywhere.  Which states you win count for different EC votes.

By my vote in PA is exactly the same as yours in wherever.

Yards are never the same as points.  In no version of football anywhere.

For the example to work the game of football would give points for the number of yards and then say, depending on which stadium you are playing in, the team that had the most would get a certain number of points.  Then all the points would be added up at the end of all the games to determine the winner.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-17-2016, 09:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Votes count the same everywhere.  Which states you win count for different EC votes.

By my vote in PA is exactly the same as yours in wherever.

Actually, this is not true.

Your vote counts the same as any other Pennsylanians does in Pennsylvania, true. However, your vote counts dick in any other state. My vote cast here in Connecticut counts the same as any other resident of CT. But, it counts absolutely 0 towards the votes counted in PA. 

So, if you and I both voted for Johnson (and I don't know who you voted for, nor do I care - it's your vote), for example, that doesn't mean our votes count the same nationally. No, your vote counts only in PA, mine counts only in CT.

[GMDino]

(11-18-2016, 11:28 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Actually, this is not true.

Your vote counts the same as any other Pennsylanians does in Pennsylvania, true. However, your vote counts dick in any other state. My vote cast here in Connecticut counts the same as any other resident of CT. But, it counts absolutely 0 towards the votes counted in PA. 

So, if you and I both voted for Johnson (and I don't know who you voted for, nor do I care - it's your vote), for example, that doesn't mean our votes count the same nationally. No, your vote counts only in PA, mine counts only in CT.

Nope.  Every vote is the same.  Your vote it CT carries the exact same weight as mine.  One person.  One vote.

The difference is that if more people in CT vote for candidate A that candidate gets CT's EC votes.

You're right that I can't control the outcome in another state.

But the individual votes are the same for each of us.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-12-2016, 08:13 PM)treee Wrote: As it stands now, there is a very low chance that the Dems ever win while losing the popular vote. The EC gives a huge boost rural communities, which we all know tend to lean right in general. Therefor the EC will continue to favor Republicans until a different system is in place or the rural voter preference changes.

BS, put up a worthy candidate and they'll vote for them. People crossed the lines for Bill.

As I keep telling you, when you campaign and ignore the economy and how to get jobs back in play, you will lose. No one wants to believe how great TPP will be for us, people lost jobs to NAFTA, we are not that eager to support another similar plan.