Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

[commando]

watching trumps speech.  he truely believes the senate is going to overturn the election

[knapplc]

21 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

something like this is much more palatable, to folks from "land doesn't vote" areas than simply eliminating it

 

Why isn't "one person, one vote" palatable?

[Archy1221]

33 minutes ago, Enhance said:

This is a silly. First, that's not what's being said, and second, you're dumbing down the argument/debate in order to warp the discussion

 

Your response suggests it is rational to negate the way other people do things simply because it is different, without actually giving credence to why they may do things differently.

What about the rest of the point.  If we would drastically change the way we do Presidential elections, why not make the other changes too in order to make a more representative government?   Why have a filibuster if we want majority rule?  Is there really a need for a Senate and a house or could we just have one big legislative body for majority rule that represents the will of the people?  

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Why isn't "one person, one vote" palatable?

Look at the maps from the just concluded election. Check out the number of counties won by Biden to amass 81 million votes. 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Look at the maps from the just concluded election. Check out the number of counties won by Biden to amass 81 million votes. 

 

I'm not sure why counties matter. Individuals vote, not arbitrary regions on a map.

[RedDenver]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

I'm not sure why counties matter. Individuals vote, not arbitrary regions on a map.

People pretend to have ideologies and values, but when push comes to shove, they will try to hold onto even the tiniest bit of power. Like getting slightly more voting power than the average person in the Presidential election.

[Moiraine]

34 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Look at the maps from the just concluded election. Check out the number of counties won by Biden to amass 81 million votes. 

So? There are counties with less than 100 people. In no way does it make sense to count counties. It doesn't make any point. It's like saying we should equally weigh the vote of a 100 person county to a 1 million person county. Here's a good graphic:

[Redux]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

It isn't fair. It's actually worth more than it should be.

 

Only if you think rural votes shouldn't count

[Redux]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

Why isn't "one person, one vote" palatable?

 

Because it's the United States of America, not just "America"

[knapplc]

Just now, Redux said:

 

Only if you think rural votes shouldn't count

 

Rural votes count 1. 

Urban votes count 1.

 

That's pretty basic math.

Just now, Redux said:

 

Because it's the United States of America, not just "America"

 

This has no meaning. What are you trying to say?

 

[Redux]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

This has no meaning. What are you trying to say?

 

 

States set their own laws and elect their own politicians, why would we abandon that ideology just to vote on the President?

[knapplc]

Just now, Redux said:

 

States set their own laws and elect their own politicians, why would we abandon that ideology just to vote on the President?

 

No state uses an electoral college-like system to elect their legislators. In fact, no such system exists at any other level of local, state, or federal government. 

 

I keep asking and you keep not responding - what's wrong with one person, one vote?

 

[DevoHusker]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

I'm not sure why counties matter. Individuals vote, not arbitrary regions on a map.

 

I think we have discussed this before. Because, if it only takes (arbitrary number) 12 of the most populous counties, in 4 of the most populous States, to win an election, people in small population counties and States will never see another candidate in person, and no candidate will care what people in the Midwest think, or hold as their values, which are often times vastly different than the values of the East and West coast. 

 

That is why I seconded @RedDenver with the idea proposed. 

[knapplc]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

I think we have discussed this before. Because, if it only takes (arbitrary number) 12 of the most populous counties, in 4 of the most populous States, to win an election, people in small population counties and States will never see another candidate in person, and no candidate will care what people in the Midwest think, or hold as their values, which are often times vastly different than the values of the East and West coast. 

 

That is why I seconded @RedDenver with the idea proposed. 

 

This is exactly what happens now, with the Electoral college.  Surely you know this.

 

Candidates almost never come to Nebraska as it is. They rarely, if ever, go to Wyoming, North Dakota, or any other small-population state. Removing the EC wouldn't change that.

 

 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I think we have discussed this before. Because, if it only takes (arbitrary number) 12 of the most populous counties, in 4 of the most populous States, to win an election, people in small population counties and States will never see another candidate in person, and no candidate will care what people in the Midwest think, or hold as their values, which are often times vastly different than the values of the East and West coast. 

 

That is why I seconded @RedDenver with the idea proposed. 

To be clear, I'm in favor of getting rid of the EC and doing a direct vote as it's more democratic. I was just stating the other idea for discussion.