2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[NeedChapmans]

Nice to see all the boards coming off the store windows now. Whew.

We got lucky!

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

Oh yes, I agree that these are states rights to determine how the electoral votes are divided. The states would have to agree to do it the way I am proposing and I never see that happening. Would take a constitutional amendment. Plus like I said, you then still run into the problem of gerrymandering which is a huge problem right now when it comes to representation within the state.

I guess I did a poor job of asking my main question.
Why don't liberal cities/states favor more states rights? I'm not talking about EC votes but mores rights altogether.
Wouldn't that be more of a popular vote kind of way?
And if I'm wrong about how liberals and conservatives feel about states rights versus federal rights please correct me.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[jewcer2k5]

Originally Posted by Astros19

But the vote, either by total population or percentages of the total population, would not change one iota.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

My feeling is that Congress is a check/balance on the executive branch.
The electoral college is also a check/balance on an overall population having too much control and spreading it to the state level instead of a simple popular vote.

If getting rid of the electoral college meant we more often had a democrat as president and a GOP controlled congress would it be bad? Sounds like we’d have to compromise and work for everyone.

[GOWIFB]

Originally Posted by discostu

The states to not have equal interest in changing the electoral process.

California counts a lot less than Wyoming (per resident), so why would Wyoming cede any ground here?

The states could all decide to deliver electoral votes based on the popular vote, completely bypassing any Constitutional Amendment. But they won't.

Until then, a vote in Wyoming has over 3 times more electoral weight than a vote in California.

Maybe you didn't see my other post but I am saying you still weigh the electoral votes given to each state as the same.

[DegaBama]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Nice to see all the boards coming off the store windows now. Whew.

We got lucky!

The symbolism this is.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by discostu

The states to not have equal interest in changing the electoral process.



California counts a lot less than Wyoming (per resident), so why would Wyoming cede any ground here?



The states could all decide to deliver electoral votes based on the popular vote, completely bypassing any Constitutional Amendment. But they won't.



Until then, a vote in Wyoming has over 3 times more electoral weight than a vote in California.

2019 numbers.
California 39.5 million people.
Wyoming 578 thousand people.
You're running for president, where are you going campaigning?


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[jewcer2k5]

Originally Posted by Astros19

2019 numbers.
California 39.5 million people.
Wyoming 578 thousand people.
You're running for president, where are you going campaigning?


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Were there any campaigns in Wyoming anyway?

[petesahuttt]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

This is just fantasy. All of it (especially the last part).

I want everyone on here to show me the riots and protests from the right now that Biden has been declared the winner. Let's see all the Trump supporters on the streets.

I think we know what reality will show.

I think you will see celebrations followed by nefarity when night falls

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Astros19

I guess I did a poor job of asking my main question.
Why don't liberal cities/states favor more states rights? I'm not talking about EC votes but mores rights altogether.
Wouldn't that be more of a popular vote kind of way?
And if I'm wrong about how liberals and conservatives feel about states rights versus federal rights please correct me.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Excellent question. Complicated answer. Could write a book and only get halfway through.

Conservatives basically want minimal govt. They don't want anybody telling them what to do or not do. These types of societies often end up with fringe groups being oppressed, since there is less govt regulations to protect them.

Liberals want more protections. They don't want anyone to have the right to oppress anyone else. That means more regulations and whatnot. Gotta make more rules if that's how you feel.

Rules on a federal level offer protections to the entire nation. States' rights do not. Some states choose to be more restrictive, some less.

Conservatives want less...everywhere. Liberals want more... everywhere. This is where federalism comes into play. It's the compromise.

So yeah, libs generally favor federal regulations. Pubs often want the states to decide how much regulation each region will impose on itself. Pubs don't want some lib in Cali making rules for them and Libs don't want some rural pub doing whatever the heck they want.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[discostu]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

Maybe you didn't see my other post but I am saying you still weigh the electoral votes given to each state as the same.

States would have to divvy up the votes a la Nebraska and Maine....based on districts. Right?

Not ideal...but none of it actually is.

For me, the Senate is the great equalizer.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by Astros19

2019 numbers.
California 39.5 million people.
Wyoming 578 thousand people.
You're running for president, where are you going campaigning?


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by jewcer2k5

Were there any campaigns in Wyoming anyway?

Or California?

[duwal]

Originally Posted by packman80

Dems wanting this shows what petty nasty people you are. But I did not expect any different.

Guess you would not expect any different from a good amount of Republicans like myself who would love to see it play out like that too

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Astros19

I guess I did a poor job of asking my main question.
Why don't liberal cities/states favor more states rights? I'm not talking about EC votes but mores rights altogether.
Wouldn't that be more of a popular vote kind of way?
And if I'm wrong about how liberals and conservatives feel about states rights versus federal rights please correct me.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Complicated but valid question. When you say liberal I assume you mean Democratic, which in my opinion are not synonyms.

To reference your other post, I agree Dems seem more concerned with federal policy than state policy and have only recently under the Trump administration begun to reconsider their stances on state vs. national.

[discostu]

The fact that Biden will take over the @POTUS Twitter account on January 20th will show the strangest dichotomy.

[hrad_23]

A very liberal friend shared this last night. While it made me chuckle, I do think this is a serious concern. Just because Trump is out and Biden is in does not mean the very radical left has magically disappeared. That's already been evidenced by the marches and events going on in Minneapolis the last couple of days.

[GOWIFB]

Originally Posted by discostu

States would have to divvy up the votes a la Nebraska and Maine....based on districts. Right?

Not ideal...but none of it actually is.

For me, the Senate is the great equalizer.

I believe so, or there would need to be some kind of agreement how to split them up. I just think that if there would be multiple districts in every state up for grabs that is more incentive for candidates to try to campaign everywhere. Just think 15-20 districts up for grabs in Cali, Texas, and New York that aren't automatically red or blue. Or you get 5-10 districts up for grabs in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. Right now there is basically no incentive to visit most of the country as 80-90% of the states vote red or blue every election and in almost all the states every vote goes to only one candidate. But like you said, there really is no perfect ideal situation.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

No need to twist the knife.

But, yeah.

America went from a jerkwad to a ham sandwich. I guess that's good, but...is it?

Going from having one of the most corrupt persons to have ever lived to having a good and decent man of honor who has already given a lifetime of public service sitting in the White House?

Yes, yes it is.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by hrad_23

A very liberal friend shared this last night. While it made me chuckle, I do think this is a serious concern. Just because Trump is out and Biden is in does not mean the very radical left has magically disappeared. That's already been evidenced by the marches and events going on in Minneapolis the last couple of days.

Attachment 494932

[ucLAkers]

Here comes the sweep from the remaining states....Nevada confirmed.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

They already have this. States decide themselves how to determine electoral votes. If California wanted to split electoral votes to mirror the popular vote, it is California's right to do so. They chose winner-take-all.

Edit to add: What you would need in your liberal scenario is for California to be able to tell other states how to determine their electoral votes. This is the opposite of states' rights...which indeed is a liberal concept.

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

I believe so, or there would need to be some kind of agreement how to split them up. I just think that if there would be multiple districts in every state up for grabs that is more incentive for candidates to try to campaign everywhere. Just think 15-20 districts up for grabs in Cali, Texas, and New York that aren't automatically red or blue. Or you get 5-10 districts up for grabs in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. Right now there is basically no incentive to visit most of the country as 80-90% of the states vote red or blue every election and in almost all the states every vote goes to only one candidate. But like you said, there really is no perfect ideal situation.

Rachel's post is correct. This could exist but it only happens in two states.

[GOWIFB]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Rachel's post is correct. This could exist but it only happens in two states.

I know, I said before this would take a constitutional amendment to have all states do it this way. And of course I don't see it ever happening. Pretty sure in this day there is no way any constitutional amendment would ever happen, no matter if its about the electoral college or anything else.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Rachel's post is correct. This could exist but it only happens in two states.

From an individual state's perspective, it makes sense to go winner-take-all. Think California...right now their electoral votes are a huge force in the election. Split em up and that goes away. They retain more influence as a state by going winner-take-all.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[discostu]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

I know, I said before this would take a constitutional amendment to have all states do it this way. And of course I don't see it ever happening. Pretty sure in this day there is no way any constitutional amendment would ever happen, no matter if its about the electoral college or anything else.

The states can work together without an amendment.

The states could all change and agree without changing at the federal, Constitutional level.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

I know, I said before this would take a constitutional amendment to have all states do it this way. And of course I don't see it ever happening. Pretty sure in this day there is no way any constitutional amendment would ever happen, no matter if its about the electoral college or anything else.

Or states could just individually ratify splitting their electoral votes.

Why does it have to be a federal amendment?

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by DegaBama

So we should elect a president based on a few big cities? That sounds terrible, those cities are ran terribly so let's run the whole country that way!

From your point of view.
If small cities, whatever that means, were run better, that is, if they had more to offer their citizens in terms of opportunity and culture, wouldn't more people live there?

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan28

@realDonaldTrump
I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!

12m ago

This is the simplest, purest confirmation there could ever be that Trump lost this election by A LOT!

73 more days of Trump's total corruption (which includes his cheating at golf at our expense at one of his bedbug-ridden, failing clubs like today), pathetic blubbering, and generally embarrassing America. Hey, we made it this far!