ADVERTISEMENT

US elections?

I’m not arguing for or against the current system. The arguments for and against both have been stated numerous times. My contention was with your assertion that Republican states contribute less to the GDP them their Dem counterparts. I simply broke it down further to individuals and their GDP contributions rather than a state level analysis.
Tax bracket has nothing to do with GDP contribution (at least in a Value Added Approach)
 
Tax bracket has nothing to do with GDP contribution (at least in a Value Added Approach)

True. However, a much larger percentage of those in the upper tax brackets compared to lower brackets own their own businesses which contributes substantially more to GDP than individual employees not to mention total tax revenue.
 
True. However, a much larger percentage of those in the upper tax brackets compared to lower brackets own their own businesses which contributes substantially more to GDP than individual employees not to mention total tax revenue.
Owning a business does little to increase GDP without the employees there running the business. One might argue that the owner provided the initial idea to increase the momentum of the business, but in many cases (like family businesses) that's not always true.

I compare it to push starting a car... the owner gave it the initial push, but the engine did most of the actual work after that.
 
It's not just my opinion. It's what's fair and just. Having unequeal voting power from person to person based simply on what latitude and longitude they reside at is stupid and it's wrong morally. It would be like saying South Tulsa should have more voting power per person than North Tulsa when it came to electing the mayor.
Your comparison of South Tulsa and North Tulsa is a really lousy analyses leaving out many main reasons for the electoral college. Those voters all live in the same area/city.

The electoral college's justification is such that different areas, much of them being rural, don't get left out of the voting power agreement. We are trying to ensure that different regions and rural areas without bigger cities don't get left out of the discussion. Rural areas have and or had less economically valuable assets, like closeness to water sources, sea ports, coasts, etc.There is a definite reason that our coasts have more large cities next to them. That shouldn't invalidate power in the central U.S.

Big cities have different ideals than those in smaller cities, and shouldn't be in complete control of how the country is run, simply because more people are drawn to their cities. Those decisions being made affect the smaller cities as well, but you are arguing that the areas around larger cities should pretty much have major control over those who make decisions, simply because of geographic advantages to drawing in more people.

Your desire of having five or so states, simply because those states agree with your party, control the election from start to finish, is biased. You are essentially arguing for invalidation of the voting power for more than 3/4's of the geographical U.S. Those governments whose system you are lauding, have the geographic area of ONE of our states. So the argument is not the same.

Your arguments reminds me of your arguments ignoring the cultural differences between us and Korea, Japan, China, etc, over how covid was dealt with in the general population of those countries, compared to us. Just because you ignore relevant facts doesn't make them irrelevant.

I think that the electoral college is a good compromise that help to balance the power between population, and geographical regions in a large country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and HuffyCane
Owning a business does little to increase GDP without the employees there running the business. One might argue that the owner provided the initial idea to increase the momentum of the business, but in many cases (like family businesses) that's not always true.

I compare it to push starting a car... the owner gave it the initial push, but the engine did most of the actual work after that.

Business owners create the jobs which produce the services and products which result in our GDP. It is their vision, intelligence, risk and hard work which power our economy. They are the job creators. Almost everyone can be an employee. Very few have the vision, work ethic and are willing to take the risk required to create jobs and wealth for themselves and their employees. Historically the problem is almost never a lack of workers. It’s the lack of people who can create jobs for those workers so they can provide for their families. There’s a reason less than 35% of small business are around after ten years. It’s damn hard.
 
Last edited:
Your comparison of South Tulsa and North Tulsa is a really lousy analyses leaving out many main reasons for the electoral college. Those voters all live in the same area/city.

The electoral college's justification is such that different areas, much of them being rural, don't get left out of the voting power agreement. We are trying to ensure that different regions and rural areas without bigger cities don't get left out of the discussion. Rural areas have and or had less economically valuable assets, like closeness to water sources, sea ports, coasts, etc.There is a definite reason that our coasts have more large cities next to them. That shouldn't invalidate power in the central U.S.

Big cities have different ideals than those in smaller cities, and shouldn't be in complete control of how the country is run, simply because more people are drawn to their cities. Those decisions being made affect the smaller cities as well, but you are arguing that the areas around larger cities should pretty much have major control over those who make decisions, simply because of geographic advantages to drawing in more people.

Your desire of having five or so states, simply because those states agree with your party, control the election from start to finish, is biased. You are essentially arguing for invalidation of the voting power for more than 3/4's of the geographical U.S. Those governments whose system you are lauding, have the geographic area of ONE of our states. So the argument is not the same.

Your arguments reminds me of your arguments ignoring the cultural differences between us and Korea, Japan, China, etc, over how covid was dealt with in the general population of those countries, compared to us. Just because you ignore relevant facts doesn't make them irrelevant.

I think that the electoral college is a good compromise that help to balance the power between population, and geographical regions in a large country.
Why should a farmer have a larger vote than a Auto Worker? Rural rights will be protected in the same way that all other rights are protected. We don't live in an agrarian society where large amounts of wealth are concentrated among a handful of landowners anymore, and even if we did, that method of thinking is still flawed and downright wrong. Rural areas will have a vote proportional to the people that live in them. If they made a state out of Death Valley tomorrow and only one person resided there, that doesn't mean their vote should count for anymore than if they lived in Miami. My analogy is fine. Just because you don't like the analogy doesn't mean it's incorrect. Wagoner has fewer people than Tulsa county and one is lightyears more "rural" than the other. That doesn't mean that a person Wagoner should have the voting power of 1.5 people in Tulsa county. We don't protect rural counties in gubernatorial elections at the cost of urban counties. We shouldn't do it in Presidential elections either.

The real reason they instituted the electoral college was that they thought that the electors could prevent an unfit nominee from becoming President, however with the fact that that's never happened before and now 32 states + DC have laws barring faithless electors, it will never happen.

If the Republicans started winning California and New York tomorrow and suddenly took the popular vote I would still argue that one vote should count the same no matter if you live in Dallas or Anchorage. It's not about who's in power it's about balancing the scales. When the scales are tipped to one side like they currently are, justice is infringed.

The cultural differences between us and East Asia are differences out of our own volition, because we're selfish and we want to throw fits when our government asks, much less tells, us to do something for the good of society.
 
Last edited:
Other than the bolded part, that is precisely how it works....

But I don't disagree at all with the bolded part. Some cities and states have "non-partisan" elections for mayors and other more local offices. It essentially just means that the party ID is not on the ballot when you vote, and can't be used during the campaign either. It is kind of obvious who is from what party to anyone paying attention and endorsements and the like, but it can and does lead to dems winning in GOP strongholds and vice versa. It's kind of interesting sociologically.

Editted for weird formatting...
No@!! illegals are allowed to vote. Voter eligibility is not verified. Voters sign up on election day.

I just moved to another state. I have received mail in ballots from both states
 
No@!! illegals are allowed to vote. Voter eligibility is not verified. Voters sign up on election day.

I just moved to another state. I have received mail in ballots from both states
And if you fill them both out and the state finds out, then you've committed voter fraud and you go to jail.... just like if you try to vote in two precincts.

Also, why are you only concerned about "illegals". Legal visitors to our country could theoretically vote and throw things off too! GASP!
 
Rural areas will have a vote proportional to the people that live in them. If they made a state out of Death Valley tomorrow and only one person resided there, that doesn't mean their vote should count for anymore than if they lived in Miami.
Not without the electoral college they don't. If all the big cities on the east and west voted for one party, which is what they essentially do right now, it wouldn't matter much how the rest of the public voted. The president would already be decided. You can keep whining bout this, and it won't change a thing.
 
Not without the electoral college they don't. If all the big cities on the east and west voted for one party, which is what they essentially do right now, it wouldn't matter much how the rest of the public voted. The president would already be decided. You can keep whining bout this, and it won't change a thing.
Please see my response to the TUMe about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If I, and others keep whining about this, it will eventually change... it's just a matter of how soon.

And why does it matter if the party that represents the rural states doesn't win? Remind me again? What happens? Why should the President be expected to protect the interests of rural communities more fervently than the interests of more populated communities? What's the benefit to the nation as a whole?
 
Please see my response to the TUMe about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If I, and others keep whining about this, it will eventually change... it's just a matter of how soon.

And why does it matter if the party that represents the rural states doesn't win? Remind me again? What happens? Why should the President be expected to protect the interests of rural communities more fervently than the interests of more populated communities? What's the benefit to the nation as a whole?
Because the president will never be elected by the rural population. It will always be the cities who elect the president. I don't have a problem with the cities electing the president some of the time. My problem is with them never getting represented in the executive branch. But you don't give damn about that. You never want a segment of the population never getting represented in any one of the three branches. Yes they get represented in congress, but they would never have representation in the executive branch.
 
Why should a farmer have a larger vote than a Auto Worker? Rural rights will be protected in the same way that all other rights are protected. We don't live in an agrarian society where large amounts of wealth are concentrated among a handful of landowners anymore, and even if we did, that method of thinking is still flawed and downright wrong. Rural areas will have a vote proportional to the people that live in them. If they made a state out of Death Valley tomorrow and only one person resided there, that doesn't mean their vote should count for anymore than if they lived in Miami. My analogy is fine. Just because you don't like the analogy doesn't mean it's incorrect. Wagoner has fewer people than Tulsa county and one is lightyears more "rural" than the other. That doesn't mean that a person Wagoner should have the voting power of 1.5 people in Tulsa county. We don't protect rural counties in gubernatorial elections at the cost of urban counties. We shouldn't do it in Presidential elections either.

The real reason they instituted the electoral college was that they thought that the electors could prevent an unfit nominee from becoming President, however with the fact that that's never happened before and now 32 states + DC have laws barring faithless electors, it will never happen.

If the Republicans started winning California and New York tomorrow and suddenly took the popular vote I would still argue that one vote should count the same no matter if you live in Dallas or Anchorage. It's not about who's in power it's about balancing the scales. When the scales are tipped to one side like they currently are, justice is infringed.

The cultural differences between us and East Asia are differences out of our own volition, because we're selfish and we want to throw fits when our government asks, much less tells, us to do something for the good of society.
TL;dr. I assume the Cliff Notes are Some Animals are more equal than others.
 
Because the president will never be elected by the rural population. It will always be the cities who elect the president. I don't have a problem with the cities electing the president some of the time. My problem is with them never getting represented in the executive branch. But WH you don't give damn about that. You never want a segment of the population never getting represented in any one of the three branches. Yes they get represented in congress, but they would never have representation in the executive branch.
My personal favorite is when people bellyache that the Big 10 and the SEC run college football to the detriment to everyone else because they have the most money and most viewers, and then in another thread claim it’s a good idea to abolish the electoral college .
 
Because the president will never be elected by the rural population. It will always be the cities who elect the president. I don't have a problem with the cities electing the president some of the time. My problem is with them never getting represented in the executive branch. But you don't give damn about that. You never want a segment of the population never getting represented in any one of the three branches. Yes they get represented in congress, but they would never have representation in the executive branch.
That’s just not true, if there’s enough heartache among rural areas it will bleed over into some surrounding urban areas and they will form a coalition. Rural areas don’t deserve protection at the cost of fairness to everyone else. After all, we don’t protect them in gubernatorial elections. Their vote is proportional to their population and not a fraction more. If anything, governors have a much more direct influence on rural areas yet they aren’t elected via representatives. They’re elected directly.
 
I have a problem with people who pay no taxes wanting the government to give them more, and the elected officials who do this.
 
I have a problem with people who pay no taxes wanting the government to give them more, and the elected officials who do this.
Oh god, shut up about the same old thing you drone on incessantly about. Nobody's listening.
 
Don’t you want the whole country run like Chicago?
How does him droning on incessantly about people paying no taxes, and wanting the government to give them more, affect how we run cities other than Chicago? It didn't affect it the first time, and it didn't affect it the 893rd time. More importantly it didn't add to the conversation, or inform anybody's viewpoint, the 893rd time it was incessantly repeated.
 
Last edited:
I'm just wondering how it is, that Trump thinks his law enforcement would do anything to 'help' run the elections. It would just make it more difficult for the election workers to do their job. It would slow the elections down to a snail's pace and make the election impossible to accomplish. Are the election workers supposed to go over what they are doing with law enforcement officers for every voter they are attending to. That just wouldn't help to stop illegal voting, even if it weren't illegal to do so. It's just a fear tactic.
 
IMO, the whole electoral college argument has nothing to do with urban vs. rural and everything to do with the states’ power vs. the federal government’s power. The fact is, the United States would never have been formed if it was a pure majoritarian democracy because the less populous states would never have agreed to join such a system. The federalist system we have now is a compromise that all states agreed to when they joined the Union (whenever that was). To renege on it now and abolish the Electoral College (or the Senate) without a Constitutional Amendment amounts to breech of contract.
 
IMO, the whole electoral college argument has nothing to do with urban vs. rural and everything to do with the states’ power vs. the federal government’s power. The fact is, the United States would never have been formed if it was a pure majoritarian democracy because the less populous states would never have agreed to join such a system. The federalist system we have now is a compromise that all states agreed to when they joined the Union (whenever that was). To renege on it now and abolish the Electoral College (or the Senate) without a Constitutional Amendment amounts to breech of contract.
To me that's the same argument. You are just talking bout the motivation of the states to argue for that very same thing for a similar to identical reason.
 
To me that's the same argument. You are just talking bout the motivation of the states to argue for that very same thing for a similar to identical reason.
My point is that the Electoral College is not arbitrary or unfair. It was a compromise to balance the power of less populous states vs. more populous states, and both ends of that spectrum agreed to it. Without that compromise, there would be no United States as we know them because the less populous states wouldn’t have signed up for it. To go back on that compromise now (without a Constitutional Amendment) because some people don’t like it is equivalent to breech of contract.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and Gmoney4WW
th

Electoral College is the Constitutional way.. But again dems think they don't have to follow the rules. elections, free speech, immigration,
The 3/5ths rule was also constitutional. As was slavery at large, as was not letting women vote. You didn't even used to have the ability to directly elect senators (They were elected much in the fashion of the president, by the state legislature). We saw that Direct Election of Senators was a good thing so we passed the 17th Amendment during Wilson's administration. Should have changed the Chief Executive while we were at it.
 
which is biggest electionr issue?
Illegals voting, people voting for others, voter id verification, dead people voting, more people voting in a precincts than registered voters, hanging chads, provincial ballots, r and d on the ballot, required voter registration, uneducated voters, polls, media, political ads. money. foreign interference,
 
Last edited:
which is biggest voter issue?
Illegals voting, people voting for others, voter id verification, dead people voting, more people voting in a precincts than registered voters, hanging chads, provincial ballots, r and d on the ballot, required voter registration, uneducated voters,
Far and away the biggest problem.
 
It's not an opinion anymore than "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" is an opinion. It's a self evident truth that the weight on one vote should equal the weight of another vote, or why vote in the first place?

The Tulsa discussion is spot on. You could also extrapolate the argument to counties voting for Governor. Why should one person's vote in Wagoner County, count for more than one person's vote in Tulsa County when voting for Governor or Senator? When the founders created the system it was to give the agrarian landowner more influence in a time where holding land was really important and landowners in small states were the most learned members of society. But now, holding land is next to meaningless in terms of your status in society, and it certainly doesn't have any bearing on your ability to make good decisions for the country.

Finally, there is one method to basically subvert the electoral college without changing the constitution. It's for more states to agree to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Since the states have the right to determine how their Presidential votes are administered, they can all agree among each other that they will follow the popular vote instead of their intra-state vote. This wouldn't actually take an amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

If you keep seeing the President elected by a minority of the country I think you're certainly going to see more people in swing states lobbying for this.

Right now there are states representing 260 electoral votes in agreement or with pending referendums / bills on the issue (190 currently approved) The compact is agreed by the states to kick in when they represent 270 votes. So, we're actually a lot closer to addressing this issue than you realize. If a few more medium states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, or North Carolina get on board we won't have to have this discussion anymore.

No matter how many times you deny it, when you go against the Constitution without following the method it prescribed you are simply stating your opinion. If Trump or Biden does what you want they will be violating the oath that they swore to protect and defend the Constitution.

Oh, did I mention that it is just your opinion?
 
No matter how many times you deny it, when you go against the Constitution without following the method it prescribed you are simply stating your opinion. If Trump or Biden does what you want they will be violating the oath that they swore to protect and defend the Constitution.

Oh, did I mention that it is just your opinion?
Kinda like saying that the Pope's belief that God is real is just his opinion.
 
Well, I like that you consider yourself on par with the Pope, but then I am not Catholic. You give some of the most outlandish comparisons.
They're called hyberbole. They're intended to make a point. Like, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse"
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT