I need help countering this liberal....

[John F Kennedy III]

Maybe I'm not braining right or maybe he accidentally made a good point. Anyway, what would your response be?

ok, big constitution guy like yourself understands what a republic is right? one person, one vote, and representation is determined proportionally. So, via proportional representation, it would follow that the half of the country living in 10% of the land area should have half of the voting representation, no? Because the electoral college is based on electors from senators and representatives for the state, there is no longer proportional representation due to each state getting 2 EVs for their senators, regardless of population. you also find rural districts that have significantly less voters than urban districts contain. So what you are using here is a false analogy, a common tool of propagandists and one of the primary logical fallacies used in political arguments. hope that clears things up for you.

Now, i'm all for letting the land have a vote, and i'm pretty sure mother earth would not be for strip mining and exploiting the resources in the most cost effective way possible regardless of the effects on other ecosystems. she's been clicking along pretty well on her own for a few hundred thousand years, she doesn't need humans fouling her to satisfy their greed, but what do i know, i'm just a stupid liberal who makes stuff up.

Forgot to add this. This is the post of mine he was replying to:



Should the tiny amount of blue be able to rule over all that grey? Fuck no. That would be insane. Sadly, the only reason it's being discussed is Hillary lost. If she would've won the left would have yet again been like "what's the electoral college?" If she would've won but with the map opposite and 90% blue and she lost the popular vote, the left would be laughing at the idea that 10% of the country should rule the other 90%. Instead of promoting that very idea like they are now.

 

[timosman]

context?

 

[MelissaWV]

The EC was made then for the same reason it now stands. Three or four metro areas de IDing the outcome and ignoring every other area is even worse than what we have now. Regardless, if this person feels so strongly about it I am sure they have been working to abolish it for years, right? Not after the results they don't agree with, right?

 

[TheCount]

The electoral college does indeed cause votes to be unequally weighted.

In Congress, this makes sense because you have the balance of one house in which states are equal, and then the other house in which all people are equal. One can override the other to prevent the passing of some legislation. The electoral college has no such balance.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

He is assuming that proportion simply applies in the strictest sense to individuals as individuals only (the proverbial "one man, one vote"). Proportion also applies to many other items, including centralization versus decentralization, state versus federal, urban versus rural, etc. If you simply count the popular vote nationally on everything, then you would nix local and state government. There would be no reason for states, which is unthinkable to thinking people in a land so vast.

If the urban vote counted for 50% (as the lib suggests), then candidates would have little or no reason to visit/court North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, and a lot of states with only one moderately large population center. Those would be Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, West Virginia. That is antithetical to state representation, both practically and philosophically.

The electoral college also functions as a safeguard. The electors are not even necessarily bound to cast for popular vote. They certainly are not constitutionally completely bound, but that's another question. The original purpose of involving the states was to safeguard against federal override.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The electoral college has no such balance.

It has balance in terms of federal versus state, urban versus rural, centralization versus decentralization, etc.

 

[Origanalist]

The United States Electoral College is the body that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead they choose "electors", who usually pledge to vote for particular candidates.[2][3][4]

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the state is entitled

Here is a map showing the amount of electors from each State.

It looks like the populated areas are pretty well represented to me.

And what is he talking about when he say hundreds of thousands of years? Has the age of the earth been revised?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

context?

My bad. This is the post of mine he was replying to:



Should the tiny amount of blue be able to rule over all that grey? Fuck no. That would be insane. Sadly, the only reason it's being discussed is Hillary lost. If she would've won the left would have yet again been like "what's the electoral college?" If she would've won but with the map opposite and 90% blue and she lost the popular vote, the left would be laughing at the idea that 10% of the country should rule the other 90%. Instead of promoting that very idea like they are now.

 

[The Northbreather]

Here is a map showing the amount of electors from each State.

It looks like the populated areas are pretty well represented to me.

And what is he talking about when he say hundreds of thousands of years? Has the age of the earth been revised?

Caught me off guard as well it's usually 4.5 billion or a few thousand years old. At second glance I think he's referring to the last evolution of man.

 

[CaptUSA]

Ya know, if ya had a government that was constrained by a Constitution, then it wouldn't really matter, would it?

The blue couldn't violate the gray anymore than the gray could violate the blue.


(but anyway, the purpose of the electoral college is that it's one of the last vestiges of dual federalism. That each state has a say in who is elected to represent the federal government.)

 

[Origanalist]

My bad. This is the post of mine he was replying to:



Should the tiny amount of blue be able to rule over all that grey? Fuck no. That would be insane. Sadly, the only reason it's being discussed is Hillary lost. If she would've won the left would have yet again been like "what's the electoral college?" If she would've won but with the map opposite and 90% blue and she lost the popular vote, the left would be laughing at the idea that 10% of the country should rule the other 90%. Instead of promoting that very idea like they are now.

Your meme shows exactly why we have the electoral college, Otherwise the rest of the country would be nothing but serfs ruled by those in the blue zones. But even that has failed to a measurable degree.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

My bad. This is the post of mine he was replying to:



Should the tiny amount of blue be able to rule over all that grey? Fuck no. That would be insane. Sadly, the only reason it's being discussed is Hillary lost. If she would've won the left would have yet again been like "what's the electoral college?" If she would've won but with the map opposite and 90% blue and she lost the popular vote, the left would be laughing at the idea that 10% of the country should rule the other 90%. Instead of promoting that very idea like they are now.

He saw this map and still didn't get it? Sounds like you're wasting your time on some bimbo who should be holding a book instead of his mascara.

 

[silverhandorder]

The electoral college does indeed cause votes to be unequally weighted.

In Congress, this makes sense because you have the balance of one house in which states are equal, and then the other house in which all people are equal. One can override the other to prevent the passing of some legislation. The electoral college has no such balance.

When do you not take a liberal side? You are so obviously a liberal.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

TheCount is NOT the "Supporting Member" he claims in his avatar. He hates living in South Carolina and loves Hillary Clinton.

Too bad he and ZippyJuan are crying because their girlfriend lost. Looks like a lot of their posting on here was in vain. Boo hoo.

 

[Original_Intent]

Bastiat makes the point that if government were kept within its proper role - the vote could be extended to all people, even children without harm to anyone. One man, one vote would be fine, because 51% could not impose its will on the 49%, or the 90% could not impose its will on the 10%.

Sadly, not the world we live in. It's the world the founders tried to create with the Constitution, but we the people failed to maintain it.

 

[TheCount]

When do you not take a liberal side? You are so obviously a liberal.

To you, facts are liberal. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

To you, facts are liberal. That's your problem, not mine.

You mean like the fact that you're not a "supporting member."

 

[timosman]

Many conservatives on the left coast(CA, OR, WA) did not bother to vote as it was given they will go blue. Take CA out of the equation and recount the vote. CA was 5,860 vs 3,151. This would give a landslide to Trump: +1,600,000 in popular vote. Do you want a single state to decide the election?

 

[timosman]

The electoral college does indeed cause votes to be unequally weighted.

In Congress, this makes sense because you have the balance of one house in which states are equal, and then the other house in which all people are equal. One can override the other to prevent the passing of some legislation. The electoral college has no such balance.

Why are we wasting time on these teenagers?

 

[silverhandorder]

To you, facts are liberal. That's your problem, not mine.

No