Minority rule

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-27-2020, 02:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why shouldn't votes from California count?

This reminds me of people who like to play make believe and say stuff like "Except for those three 50 yard td runs our defense was pretty good".

I have never understood why people think they can prove a point by eliminating facts that don't agree with their opinion.  What difference would it make if California was split into 4 different states and everyone still voted the same?  Would their votes still not count?

They do count. In California. 

The difference would be then they would be their own separate States with their own State Constitutions and governments. We aren't a single mass of a country. We are 50 States that are united but still separate entities in many ways. One State feeling extra extra strongly about something doesn't make a difference compared to if they just felt normally strong about something.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-27-2020, 01:47 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The immediate solution is banning winner take all and doing proportional allocation (you can't do district based because of gerrymandering). 


Even within this system that you're praising for making states matter, Florida had 500k more voters than Texas but 7 less electoral votes. North Carolina also had more voters than Georgia but less electoral votes.

Which any and every State is allowed to do if they so desire. Key words being if they so desire. There's two States that split their EC votes and one of them didn't even change to that until 1992. So if you want yours to stop winner-take-all, try to make a change in your State.


What does turnout have to do with anything? It's not like we call Trump a more legitimate President because the voter turnout in 2016 was higher than both of Clinton's and the first W Bush's elections. The State has their say regardless of their voter turnout, the turnout is merely to guide what that State says. If you don't vote, you're cosigning whomever wins in your State because you didn't care enough to go out and vote otherwise.

[BmorePat87]

(10-27-2020, 06:49 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Which any and every State is allowed to do if they so desire. Key words being if they so desire. There's two States that split their EC votes and one of them didn't even change to that until 1992. So if you want yours to stop winner-take-all, try to make a change in your State.


What does turnout have to do with anything? It's not like we call Trump a more legitimate President because the voter turnout in 2016 was higher than both of Clinton's and the first W Bush's elections. The State has their say regardless of their voter turnout, the turnout is merely to guide what that State says. If you don't vote, you're cosigning whomever wins in your State because you didn't care enough to go out and vote otherwise.

This is a very disjointed message. I’m not sure what total voter turnout has to do with pointing out the flaw in giving Texas more weight for less voters than Florida.

I have to assume that every time a conservative rejects splitting electoral votes proportionately, it’s a tacit admission that it was never about state representation, just about supporting a system that works for them.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-27-2020, 10:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I’m not sure what total voter turnout has to do with pointing out the flaw in giving Texas more weight for less voters than Florida.

Texas Population: 29.0m
Florida Population: 21.5m

Texas Registered Voters: 11.6m
Florida Registered Voters: 9.4m

Texas has more people. Texas has more registered voters. So the only thing you could be talking about is voter turnout. As evidenced by the fact you quoted 500k people which was the difference in turnout in 2016.

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2020, 11:38 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Texas Population: 29.0m
Florida Population: 21.5m

Texas Registered Voters: 11.6m
Florida Registered Voters: 9.4m

Texas has more people. Texas has more registered voters. So the only thing you could be talking about is voter turnout. As evidenced by the fact you quoted 500k people which was the difference in turnout in 2016.

The mods apparently deleted your last post and my response.

You suggested that California was the reason why someone can lose the popular vote and still win the electoral vote. I provided a host of examples of issues arising from the winner-take-all electoral vote system in place, which included showing how some larger states ended up having less voters than some smaller states and the imbalance of electoral votes to total votes without California being counted. This is within the context of losing the popular vote and winning the electoral vote.

I didn't suggest the election was invalid. You then brought up national voter turnout and suggested that I would have to reject all elections with lower national turnout, something that was nonsensical.

I understand that you realize that your response made no sense and it was designed to make no sense to avoid my actual points, but I decided to respond and clarify this anyways so that there is no need for you to respond to me with more gibberish. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-28-2020, 12:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The mods apparently deleted your last post and my response.

You suggested that California was the reason why someone can lose the popular vote and still win the electoral vote. I provided a host of examples of issues arising from the winner-take-all electoral vote system in place, which included showing how some larger states ended up having less voters than some smaller states and the imbalance of electoral votes to total votes without California being counted. This is within the context of losing the popular vote and winning the electoral vote.

I didn't suggest the election was invalid. You then brought up national voter turnout and suggested that I would have to reject all elections with lower national turnout, something that was nonsensical.

I understand that you realize that your response made no sense and it was designed to make no sense to avoid my actual points, but I decided to respond and clarify this anyways so that there is no need for you to respond to me with more gibberish. 

TLDR: You said the EC didn't make sense because Florida had more voters than Texas but Texas got more EC Votes. I said they only had more voter turnout, but less voters and less population. You then rambled on about not talking about turnout. Then you realized what you were saying made zero sense and so you decided to double down on the nonsense by pretending you didn't say anything you actually said.

Got it.

:andy:

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2020, 11:38 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Texas Population: 29.0m
Florida Population: 21.5m

Texas Registered Voters: 11.6m
Florida Registered Voters: 9.4m

Texas has more people. Texas has more registered voters. So the only thing you could be talking about is voter turnout. As evidenced by the fact you quoted 500k people which was the difference in turnout in 2016.

Perhaps he didn't understand that the number of Electors is based on population; as determined by the Census, not on how many people voted.

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2020, 12:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: TLDR: You said the EC didn't make sense because Florida had more voters than Texas but Texas got more EC Votes.
I said they only had more voter turnout, but less voters and less population. You then rambled on about not talking about turnout. Then you realized what you were saying made zero sense and so you decided to double down on the nonsense by pretending you didn't say anything you actually said.

Got it.

:andy:

I actually never said that. Posters lying is the point where I end the conversation. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2020, 01:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I actually never said that. Posters lying is the point where I end the conversation. 

I think it's a bit of a overreaction to say he's lying.  Leonard has a solid posting history in here.  If he's misrepresenting your position I would say it's far more likely this was done in error.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-28-2020, 01:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I actually never said that. Posters lying is the point where I end the conversation. 

Did you not say:

(10-27-2020, 10:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:  I’m not sure what total voter turnout has to do with pointing out the flaw in giving Texas more weight for less voters than Florida. 

I mean, I guess you could argue that you weren't saying the EC doesn't make sense rather that it has a flaw, but that's more of a misinterpretation than an outright lie, no?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-28-2020, 01:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I mean, I guess you could argue that you weren't saying the EC doesn't make sense rather that it has a flaw, but that's more of a misinterpretation than an outright lie, no?

If it has a flaw, then it doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint as a system, is what I was going at. Not that he couldn't make sense of it or anything like that.

He's dug himself in too deep and needs an out, though, so I will still take the misinterpretation of what I was trying to say as 100% my bad. 

At the end of all of this it still goes back to him specifically bringing up voter turnout numbers as his argument and then giving me shit when I point that he mentioned voter turnout, and that the flaw he tried to point out made plenty of sense when looked at from a state population standpoint, which is how it works. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think it's a bit of a overreaction to say he's lying.  Leonard has a solid posting history in here.  If he's misrepresenting your position I would say it's far more likely this was done in error.

I think it’s fair to say “lie” is too charged. “Misrepresent” is better, though I don’t think it’s in error given that I’ve repeated that this is in the context of what can cause an EC victory but popular vote loss.

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2020, 01:50 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If it has a flaw, then it doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint as a system, is what I was going at. Not that he couldn't make sense of it or anything like that.

He's dug himself in too deep and needs an out, though, so I will still take the misinterpretation of what I was trying to say as 100% my bad. 

At the end of all of this it still goes back to him specifically bringing up voter turnout numbers as his argument and then giving me shit when I point that he mentioned voter turnout, and that the flaw he tried to point out made plenty of sense when looked at from a state population standpoint, which is how it works. 

I shouldn’t have said “lying”. For that I apologize. It didn’t add anything constructive

I perceive your replies as intentionally misrepresenting my post. I responded within the context of an EC victory and popular loss, specifically saying it’s not just California and given examples of other things that caused it.

Refusing to address that and instead continuing to suggest that I was arguing something else doesn’t contribute anything constructive to this dialogue.

You took my post as attacking the EC. I was addressing the narrative you provided of California alone being the cause. At this point, you can address what I’ve said 4 times now or not. It’s up to you to decide.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2020, 06:32 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: They do count. In California. 

Then Hillary won the popular vote by a few million.

So what is your point?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2020, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then Hillary won the popular vote by a few million.

So what is your point?

I think his point, and apologies to Leonard if I'm incorrect, is that CA should not have any more influence on the rest of the country than their 55 EC votes.  

[*PhilHos*]

(10-28-2020, 06:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think his point, and apologies to Leonard if I'm incorrect, is that CA should not have any more influence on the rest of the country than their 55 EC votes.  

"Probably shouldn't even have that much influence given the state of the state," he muttered under his breath. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2020, 06:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: "Probably shouldn't even have that much influence given the state of the state," he muttered under his breath. 

As a native Californian, unlike many of the states residents, I must unfortunately agree.

[fredtoast]

(10-28-2020, 06:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think his point, and apologies to Leonard if I'm incorrect, is that CA should not have any more influence on the rest of the country than their 55 EC votes.  

I know.  We are going in circles.

You think the number of states is more important than the number of citizens.  You think the votes of some citizens should count more than others based on what state they live in.

I think all citizens votes should count he same.

And we are stuck t that point. going around and around saying the same thing over and over again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2020, 06:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know.  We are going in circles.

In many ways, yes.

Quote:You think the number of states is more important than the number of citizens.  You think the votes of some citizens should count more than others based on what state they live in.

Nope, they should all count the same within their state.

Quote:I think all citizens votes should count he same.

They do, within their state.

Quote:And we are stuck t that point. going around and around saying the same thing over and over again.

True, so maybe it's time to say we agree to disagree?

[GMDino]

Saw this on the 538 Live Election Blog:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2020-election-results-coverage/

Quote:Democrats Will Have To Overcome The Senate’s Republican Bias To Win A Majority

The Democrats are favored to win back control of the Senate. But even in a year in which Democrats are likely to win the popular vote by a hefty margin, they are at a significant disadvantage in the Senate because of the chamber’s small-state rural bias.

On the one hand, the Senate has always been unequal, long giving less populous states an outsized voice relative to their population. But for more than a century, that fact didn’t pose much of an issue in terms of which party won. Until the 1960s, Republicans and Democrats competed for both densely and sparsely populated states at roughly the same rate.


But over the last several decades, that’s changed. The parties have reorganized themselves along urban-rural lines, and there is now a clear and pronounced partisan bias in the Senate thanks to mostly rural, less populated states voting increasingly Republican. It’s reached the point that Republicans can win a majority of Senate seats while only representing a minority of Americans.

In fact, over the last four decades, Republicans have represented a majority of Americans just once — from 1997 to 1998. And yet, the GOP has held a Senate majority for 22 of the last 40 years.




If Democrats indeed gain control of the Senate, the question of statehood for Washington, D.C., will leap to prominence. After all, it’s not hard for Democrats to look at the last 40 years and believe that adding a low-population Democratic state is only fair.