GoldenEagle Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, ayin jade said: How is arizona surprising? Arizona has a history of voting republican in presidential elections. How is virginia surprising? Virginia governor pardoned hundreds of thousands of criminals at the last moment so they could vote, and they were expected to vote democrat. Sorry for clarification the surprise states for me were Florida, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin? ... Wow! Didn't see that coming. Apparently the people who do polls didn't either. Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia didn't surprise me as much. And the very close races still being determined in Michigan and New Hampshire. Who would've thought? Assuming for a moment Michigan goes to trump here's a comparison between Politico's prediction and the actual winner over these states: State Electoral Votes Predicted winner Actual winner Colorado 9 Hilary Hilary Florida 29 TBD Trump Iowa 6 Trump Trump Michigan 16 Hilary Trump Nevada 6 Hilary Hilary New Hampshire 4 Hilary TBD North Carolina 15 Hilary Trump Ohio 18 Trump Trump Pennsylvania 20 Hilary Trump Virginia 13 Hilary Hilary Wisconsin 18 Hilary Trump Hilary 101 28 Trump 24 122 Note: 29 FL too hard to predict 4 NH pending God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 597 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,106 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,840 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 26 minutes ago, GoldenEagle said: Continued points 8-10. Any thoughts on the other points below? God bless, GE Problem No. 8 The Electoral College system prevented Dick Cheney from becoming vice president. Well, no, it actually didn’t, but it would have if we had taken the letter and the intention behind the words in the Constitution seriously. The Constitution says that an elector cannot vote for a presidential and vice presidential candidate both of whom come from the same state as him/herself (the elector, that is). This rule actually made sense when the Framers put it in there but stopped making sense almost immediately. (To explain this, we’ll eventually have to get to the story of how the Framers thought this contraption was going to work.) But it’s still in there. George W. Bush was a Texan. In 2000, when he became Bush’s running mate, Cheney had been living and voting and paying taxes for five years in Texas where he eked out a living as CEO of Halliburton. Problem No. 9 In case of a tie, or if no candidate receives a majority of all electoral votes cast for president, the choice of president is thrown in the House of Representatives but the election is conducted on a one-state one-vote basis. (Yes, Wyoming – population 563,000 in the 2010 census -- would have equal say in the selection of the president with California – 37 million.) And to win, a candidate must receive the support of an absolute majority of states. Problem No. 10 And here’s a really crazy part, which sort of underscores the craziness of our practice of abiding by the Framers’ language. When the Framers put that crazy structure, where the presidential election would be thrown from the Electoral College into the House for a one-state one-vote choice of the next president, they believed this would actually happen on a regular basis. Hummm..... these points that you see as a problem I see as the reason to keep them..... Coming from a small state I do not want to see the large cities of California, New York and the Dallas/Fortworth and Atlanta dictate to the rest of the country thier wishes...... Elections would be centered on maybe eight or nine cities and the rest of us really would not matter at all. That's why the original framers of our system made it that way and I see the wisdom of doing it that way... We are not a democracy where the biggest mob rules, but a republic where everyone is considered. Had not the original 13 colonies not agreed on this we would not Be the United States of America, but a group of countries much like Europe.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, other one said: Hummm..... these points that you see as a problem I see as the reason to keep them..... Coming from a small state I do not want to see the large cities of California, New York and the Dallas/Fortworth and Atlanta dictate to the rest of the country thier wishes...... Elections would be centered on maybe eight or nine cities and the rest of us really would not matter at all. That's why the original framers of our system made it that way and I see the wisdom of doing it that way... We are not a democracy where the biggest mob rules, but a republic where everyone is considered. Had not the original 13 colonies not agreed on this we would not Be the United States of America, but a group of countries much like Europe.. You see points 8-10 as reasons to keep the electoral college in the USA? Or all 10 points? The opposite could be true about smaller states dictating wishes... Which is really what point #3 is about. The battle states or swing states really get the majority of attention from the major candidates and parties. Can you see it from that perspective? Question as what you said relates to problem number 5. So you think that the an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple weight (or quadruple weight) in electoral votes as an individual in California? Might be really good to discuss one point at a time. Would make the discussion more interesting and fruitful. God bless, GE 40 minutes ago, GoldenEagle said: Problem No. 3 The Electoral College system further distorts the presidential campaign by causing the candidates to grant extra weight to the parochial needs of the swing states. See this link: http://www.amny.com/news/elections/swing-states-explained-what-they-are-why-they-matter-in-the-2016-election-1.12408775 35 minutes ago, GoldenEagle said: Problem No. 5 The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Every state gets one electoral vote for each member of its delegation to the House of Representatives (this by itself would be a rough measure of its population) and each state also gets two “bonus” electors representing its two senators. This causes significant overrepresentation of small states in the “College.” In the most extreme case, using 2010 Census figures and the new distribution of House seats based on that census, an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California. Yes, you read that right. In fact, it’s closer to quadruple than triple. Can this be a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 597 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,106 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,840 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, GoldenEagle said: You see points 8-10 as reasons to keep the electoral college in the USA? Or all 10 points? The opposite could be true about smaller states dictating wishes... Which is really what point #3 is about. The battle states or swing states really get the majority of attention from the major candidates and parties. Can you see it from that perspective? Question as what you said relates to problem number 5. So you think that the an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple weight (or quadruple weight) in electoral votes as an individual in California? Might be really good to discuss one point at a time. Would make the discussion more interesting and fruitful. God bless, GE we do not have a one vote principle, nor do we have a democracy..... and yes I do think the voter in Wyoming deserves more stroke because our system is set up for individual states not individual people.... if a person in California wants to get more power let them move to Wyoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravindran Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 496 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 398 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/18/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 3 hours ago, GoldenEagle said: Also, I too voted for Trump. I was going to vote 3rd party but last minute changed my mind when I got to the voting station. I don't know how many did this yesterday! I am pretty sure lot to get a result like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 I went ahead and started a new topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 38 minutes ago, other one said: we do not have a one vote principle, nor do we have a democracy..... and yes I do think the voter in Wyoming deserves more stroke because our system is set up for individual states not individual people.... if a person in California wants to get more power let them move to Wyoming. interesting. So how is that fair? Is one citizen worth more than another citizen? In the current system one citizen's vote is worth more than another citizen's vote. Where is the parity? God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 9, 2016 4 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said: Problem with that is if we went entirely off the popular vote, then every election would be decided by population centers, like new York city, LA, Dallas, etc. If you lived in Wyoming or Alaska, you might as well not even bother going to the polls because your vote really won't count. Doing it this way gives low population States more of a say then a popular vote would, and the country being a republic and not a democracy, was setup more towards state control anyway. Think of it this way. If we decided to only go off a popular vote, Clinton would be our next president. Our electoral college may not be perfect, but it's preferable to the alternative. There has to be a better way then how this is being done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 9, 2016 3 hours ago, other one said: I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to abolish the electorical college system that understood why it was put into place. The Electoral College was for its time an excellent idea. Today, there has to be a better way for every vote to count. We have far better ways of measuring the desires of We the People. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Would you rather have seen Hillary get in? Because right now she would have if it weren't for the electoral college. I for one believe the system was designed by geniuses, and works every bit as well today as it did in 1787. The problem is not the system, the problem is the people in it, and until you get rid of the people in it, no matter what you do it won't fix anything. Now that Hillary's out, perhaps we can finally start doing something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts