LogFAQs > #931678844

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	I find it ironic that Democrats started all that impeachment process...
darkknight109 12/16/19 6:13:17 PM #111:	OhhhJa posted... All the Democrats that were suddenly angry with the electoral college after the election would be in full support if CA and NY were red states So people keep telling me, apparently ignorant of the fact that I'm completely against undemocratic electoral systems, regardless of who benefits. In Canada, I complained about Conservative Steven Harper winning what amounts to 100% of legislative and executive power with just 39% of the vote. I complained again when it happened four years later when Liberal Justin Trudeau did the exact same thing with the exact same numbers (one of the reasons I voted for him in 2015 was his promise to change Canada's FPTP voting system, a promise he ultimately did not keep). Systems that distort the people's electoral will are bullshit, regardless of which party they serve to prop up. The electoral college is a dumber system than most, but it's hardly the only undemocratic voting system out there. HornedLion posted... I told him that the electoral college is a dumb relic that needs to be no more. And he said there was a very important reason for it, and then neglected to inform me of that reason. Instead he went somewhere else. Did you explain to him that the electoral college was never intended to pick the president and it was expected by the constitution's framers to be a once-in-a-lifetime event? TheWorstPoster posted... Suppose that you live in Wyoming, the least populous state, of 500,000 people, and having its own state and local governments and laws. Would you REALLY want California (the most populous state of 40,000,000 people, and with its own state and local governments), telling you how to live, and what laws to enact? Suppose you live in California, the most populous state of 40,000,000 people and convinced 500,000 of your peers to vote for your candidate of choice. Would you want tiny Wyoming, with its population that's less than 2% of yours, to override your efforts with just 150,000 people and thereby dictate to you how you live and what laws you must enact? Those are real numbers, by the way. The value of a vote in Wyoming is over 3x higher than the value of a vote in California because of the way the electoral college assigns its electors. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:931678844] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>All the Democrats that were suddenly angry with the electoral college after the election would be in full support if CA and NY were red states</quote>So people keep telling me, apparently ignorant of the fact that I'm completely against undemocratic electoral systems, regardless of who benefits. In Canada, I complained about Conservative Steven Harper winning what amounts to 100% of legislative and executive power with just 39% of the vote. I complained again when it happened four years later when Liberal Justin Trudeau did the exact same thing with the exact same numbers (one of the reasons I voted for him in 2015 was his promise to change Canada's FPTP voting system, a promise he ultimately did not keep). Systems that distort the people's electoral will are bullshit, regardless of which party they serve to prop up. The electoral college is a dumber system than most, but it's hardly the only undemocratic voting system out there. HornedLion posted... </cite> <quote>I told him that the electoral college is a dumb relic that needs to be no more. And he said there was a very important reason for it, and then neglected to inform me of that reason. Instead he went somewhere else.</quote>Did you explain to him that the electoral college was never intended to pick the president and it was expected by the constitution's framers to be a once-in-a-lifetime event? TheWorstPoster posted... </cite> <quote>Suppose that you live in Wyoming, the least populous state, of 500,000 people, and having its own state and local governments and laws. Would you REALLY want California (the most populous state of 40,000,000 people, and with its own state and local governments), telling you how to live, and what laws to enact?</quote>Suppose you live in California, the most populous state of 40,000,000 people and convinced 500,000 of your peers to vote for your candidate of choice. Would you want tiny Wyoming, with its population that's less than 2% of yours, to override your efforts with just 150,000 people and thereby dictate to you how you live and what laws you must enact? Those are real numbers, by the way. The value of a vote in Wyoming is over 3x higher than the value of a vote in California because of the way the electoral college assigns its electors. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1