Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

[Redux]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

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?

 

 

1 =1 renders states useless.  We are electing the POTUS.  Each state should be counted individually.  Each state is it's own culture so therefore should have a different input.  Nebraska should have the same say as California because we are both 1 state in the US.  1 =1 makes most states invisible in terms of elections, let alone seeing an actual campaign come through.  

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Only if you think rural votes shouldn't count

This is nonsense. 1 person, 1 vote is democracy.

 

To balance out competing interests of different states (like urban vs rural) we have the Senate, so rural Americans would still hold more power than urban Americans, just not in the Presidential election.

[knapplc]

Just now, Redux said:

 

1 =1 renders states useless.  We are electing the POTUS.  Each state should be counted individually.  Each state is it's own culture so therefore should have a different input.  Nebraska should have the same say as California because we are both 1 state in the US.  1 =1 makes most states invisible in terms of elections, let alone seeing an actual campaign come through.  

 

 

 

States SHOULD be invisible. "States" do not elect presidents. People elect presidents. 

 

None of these arguments make sense. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Redux]

Just now, RedDenver said:

This is nonsense. 1 person, 1 vote is democracy.

 

To balance out competing interests of different states (like urban vs rural) we have the Senate, so rural Americans would still hold more power than urban Americans, just not in the Presidential election.

 

States should be looked at individually, not as a cluster.  1 person 1 vote is only making metropolitan area's important.  It's not democracy, but it hides well.

[DevoHusker]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

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.

 

 

So, you would be in favor of just one large Governing body, instead of representative seats in 2 Houses?

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

1 =1 renders states useless.  We are electing the POTUS.  Each state should be counted individually.  Each state is it's own culture so therefore should have a different input.  Nebraska should have the same say as California because we are both 1 state in the US.  1 =1 makes most states invisible in terms of elections, let alone seeing an actual campaign come through.  

Except that's not even how the EC works. California gets 55 electors and Nebraska gets 5. The EC is just and indirect voting mechanism that makes little sense unless in a democracy, but people from states that get a disproportionally bigger vote influence don't want to give up that power.

[Redux]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

 

 

States SHOULD be invisible. "States" do not elect presidents. People elect presidents. 

 

None of these arguments make sense. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No they shouldn't, only people who want Democrats forever think that

[Redux]

Just now, RedDenver said:

Except that's not even how the EC works. California gets 55 electors and Nebraska gets 5. The EC is just and indirect voting mechanism that makes little sense unless in a democracy, but people from states that get a disproportionally bigger vote influence don't want to give up that power.

 

That is how it works.  My vote counts towards Nebraska's total.  That's how it should be considering I live in Nebraska.

[knapplc]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

So, you would be in favor of just one large Governing body, instead of representative seats in 2 Houses?

 

It makes no sense to conflate those issues.  We're talking about elections, not the structure of governing bodies. 

 

When you vote for governor, senator, congressperson, mayor, whatever - one person gets one vote. That's how it should work in every election, at all levels of government. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

No they shouldn't, only people who want Democrats forever think that

This is a nonsense strawman.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

No they shouldn't, only people who want Democrats forever think that

 

Why would abolishing the Electoral College give us "Democrats forever?"  

 

 

[RedDenver]

Just now, Redux said:

 

That is how it works.  My vote counts towards Nebraska's total.  That's how it should be considering I live in Nebraska.

So should your vote for governor of Nebraska be limited to just the count of the county you happen to live in? It's the same nonsense as the EC.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

people from states that get a disproportionally bigger vote influence don't want to give up that power

 

This is the only actual reason for this argument. All other explanations are window dressing. 

[Moiraine]

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

 

States SHOULD be invisible. "States" do not elect presidents. People elect presidents. 

 

None of these arguments make sense. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. @Redux why should states matter in a presidential election? It should be an arbitrary line when it comes to this. The Senate represents people from each state. The House represents people from each distritct. The president represents people of the U.S.

 

Things are already lopsided in favor of low population areas due to the Senate and ease of gerrymandering in higher population areas. The vote for president at the very least should be done fairly and logically.

[Redux]