Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Which makes the Montana resident a minority and leftoids hate injustices toward minorities, so why are you crying? 

MAGA's love to disenfranchise voters, it's the only way they can win. MAGA's are always going on about entitled minorities but not when it comes to elections.

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Which makes the Montana resident a minority and leftoids hate injustices toward minorities, so why are you crying? 

The 1.1 million Montanans have two Senators, as do the 33 million Californians.  Not very democratic, is it?

[Aristides]

Academic anyway, changing it would take a constitutional amendment and that will never happen. Like it or not, Americans are stuck with it.

[Black Dog]

Because of the EC and the fact that 48 states have a winner take all system for apportioning their votes, every modern presidential election is decided by a handful of people in swing states while the votes of millions of Republican voters in California and New York and Dem voters in Texas and Florida are worthless. Cool system!

Edited October 10, 2024 by Black Dog

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

One person one vote is good enough for our country why not for the U.S.?

 

They have a different system.

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No, so that the majority of voters can have a say. 

The majority do have a say. And so do the minority.

You're all for minority rights...right?

[Black Dog]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

They have a different system.

And it's a stupid system.

[Nationalist]

Just now, Black Dog said:

And it's a stupid system.

We don't vote for Prime Minister. We have a stupid system too.

They are "different".

Say it with me..."different".

That-a boy.

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

We don't vote for Prime Minister. We have a stupid system too.

Our system still makes more sense than the EC.

Quote

 

They are "different".

Say it with me..."different".

That-a boy.

 

Again: no shit, but we're talking about the U.S. system and its flaws, try to keep up old man.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

You need to go back to high school civics.

Dont feel bad. Most liberals don't know how the EC works.

Lol. Not sure how you can quote the words and still not grasp the basic implications. 

Let's make it simple. 

Each state automatically gets 2 senators, and the the number of representatives based on population (currently over 700K per district, IIRC). So a minimum of 3 electoral votes. 

If a state has 300 people in it  3/300= 100 votes per EC vote

If a state has 3000 people in it. 3/3000 = 1000 votes per EC vote

Each individual voter in the small state  in this example has 10x the influence on the presidential election than voters in the more populous state. 

 

When representation used to scale with population this wasn't such a problem, but the reapportionment cap at 435 seats in the house (completely arbitrary, btw) the problem is getting worse and worse. This was NOT the plan when the constitution created the electoral college. It's not in the constitution. And the EC is now broken because of it. 

Again, back to real world examples. A resident of Wyoming should not have 3-4 times the voting influence on POTUS election than a resident of CA. It's fundamentally wrong. 

Edited October 10, 2024 by Hodad

[Deluge]

23 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The 1.1 million Montanans have two Senators, as do the 33 million Californians.  Not very democratic, is it?

Nothing in America is very democratic according to your definition of it. 

That's why we need to keep the EC and two senators per state. 

[Deluge]

25 minutes ago, Aristides said:

MAGA's love to disenfranchise voters, it's the only way they can win. MAGA's are always going on about entitled minorities but not when it comes to elections.

And Woketards like to groom in massive numbers. Why work with students individually when you can indoctrinate them all at once? 

No, if a New Yorker wants his vote to carry more weight, he is welcome to move to Montana. It is a free country, after all. 

[Rebound]

5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Nothing in America is very democratic according to your definition of it. 

That's why we need to keep the EC and two senators per state. 

One person, one vote.  
But, as Walz says, we can’t change it. 

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Our system still makes more sense than the EC.

Again: no shit, but we're talking about the U.S. system and its flaws, try to keep up old man.

I don't see the EC as a flaw. It evens the playing field.

[Deluge]

Just now, Rebound said:

One person, one vote.  
But, as Walz says, we can’t change it. 

One inner city school system, one indoctrination plan. 

Yet another reason to curtail you a$$holes. 

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I don't see the EC as a flaw. It evens the playing field.

That's because you're a reasonable person. You'd make a better American than every f*cking democrat on this board. 

[Black Dog]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I don't see the EC as a flaw. It evens the playing field.

It tilts the playing field, but it tilts it to your side so you don't care.

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I don't see the EC as a flaw. It evens the playing field.

More and more, Republicans are relying on it to win elections because they keep losing the popular vote. The US only recognizes one person, one vote in the House. Both the Senate and President do not. Whether you like the system or not, all voters are not equal.

We have a similar kind of disparity in Canada regarding number of seats per population in different regions but at least all votes count toward electing someone.

If something like an electoral college is so good for the presidency, why not for state governors as well to even the field between rural and urban voters within a state?

Edited October 10, 2024 by Aristides

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

It tilts the playing field, but it tilts it to your side so you don't care.

Not at all. Look up the Great Compromise. 

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Not at all. Look up the Great Compromise. 

The one that allowed slave states to include 3/5's of their slave population as voters for the EC? What a great thing to be proud of.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

What an embarrassing post for you.

The Senate has nothing to do with the voting of the EC. All they do is certify that the votes EC votes are accurate and valid.

As for the EC, and confirmed by my link above, the EC is based on the number of reps in the state. The number of reps in the state is based on the population of the state. More populous states have more EC votes than less populous states.

I don't understand why you lie so much. Do you just not know any better or are you so dedicated to the liberal ideology that you'll do and say anything?

So you really DON'T KNOW that the number of EC electors is assigned based on the NUMBER OF SENATORS plus the number of House members.

That's what it has to do "with the voting of the EC" when tiny states have more EC voters than their population justifies compared to large states.

AKA, Montana has 3 EC electors when their House member count is ONLY ONE.

HOW EMBARRASSING FOR YOU. LMAO

Electoral College | USAGov

USA.gov

https://www.usa.gov › ... › How the president is elected

 

 

Aug 22, 2024 — Learn about the Electoral College, which decides who will be elected president and vice president of the United States.

 

Who is in the Electoral College?

Each state gets as many electors as it has members of Congress (House and Senate). Including Washington, D.C.'s three electors, there are currently 538 electors in all. Find out how many electoral votes each state gets.

Edited October 10, 2024 by robosmith

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

More and more, Republicans are relying on it to win elections because they keep losing the popular vote. The US only recognizes one person, one vote in the House. Both the Senate and President do not. Whether you like the system or not, all voters are not equal.

 

Would you rather have the smaller states leave the republic? Because that's what would happen.

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

The one that allowed slave states to include 3/5's of their slave population as voters for the EC? What a great thing to be proud of.

It is what it is...sans your moral judgement.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

More and more, Republicans are relying on it to win elections because they keep losing the popular vote. The US only recognizes one person, one vote in the House. Both the Senate and President do not. Whether you like the system or not, all voters are not equal.

We have a similar kind of disparity in Canada regarding number of seats per population in different regions but at least all votes count toward electing someone.

If something like an electoral college is so good for the presidency, why not for state governors as well to even the field between rural and urban voters within a state?

Good question. Probably has something to do with local population. But I'm guessing. 

[Black Dog]

10 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Would you rather have the smaller states leave the republic? Because that's what would happen.

Lol yeah good luck with that.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Not at all. Look up the Great Compromise. 

You know what's happened since then? All of those 3/5 of a people have been upgraded to whole people in terms of representation. 

And that was almost 150 years before the reapportionment act capped the size of the house, radically exacerbating the imbalance. 

We've now reached the point where every presidential election is a question of EV vs popular votes. It's happening more frequently and it's a question every election. It's a system that no longer serves a purpose or the people. That's why a healthy majority of Americans want it abolished. 

 

 

 

[Hodad]

47 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Would you rather have the smaller states leave the republic? Because that's what would happen.

Over having to suffer the terrible indignity of equal voting power in presidential elections? Sure. 

Except that they'd never do that, because they are net takers. They depend on the rest of the US to sustain them. 

Edited October 10, 2024 by Hodad

[NAME REMOVED]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Based.

Why do you hate democracy?

He has always hated democracy.  Why else would be cheerleading for Putin?