Where’s The “Popular Vote” Thread?

[DrHoops]

No, I refer you to the method that Marvin wants to do above (that I still am not on board with). The Democrats have large numbers of people who vote for them generally jammed into certain areas that are not reflective of life across the country. The popular vote gives places like LA, New York, and Chicago too much political power. Large cities like that are a world unto their own that isn't reflective of how most of the rest of the country lives.

That could/would lead to decisions being made that cater to them at the detriment of the rest of us.

Who cares if people like living in compact areas? I don’t understand why you keep repeating an irrelevant point.

Are you having trouble understanding that your entire point is why the electoral college is so outdated and useless. Again, you keep talking about compact population centers. Why on earth does it matter?

The Mormon Religion was founded and The Book of Mormon was written by a swindler, a con-man, and a general a criminal. Now why are Utah’s votes reflective of the way the rest of the country lives? How bout the voters in Alabama and Mississippi? Continually at the very bottom of every category in which a stat can be judged. Are they reflecting the way the rest of the country lives? God, no.

Your point makes zero sense.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Exactly!

No, not exactly. Marvin and your argument is basically "if my state doesn't go the way I voted because an overwhelming majority of the people in my state tend to vote one way, then my vote doesn't count." That is nonsense.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Who cares if people like living in compact areas? I don’t understand why you keep repeating an irrelevant point.

It isn't an irrelevant point. The system I espouse, the one we currently have, provides protections so that certain regions and people types do not have the ability to direct federal power by their numbers. For a flippant example, we live in a 5 story condo. The top 2 floors are smaller apartments and therefore more people are on those floors. The bottom 3 floors have larger apartments and therefore less people live on the bottom 3 floors than the top 2. A committee to paint the common areas is put together. The majority of the people in the bottom 3 floors prefer neutral colors and a majority of those on the top floors like vibrant colors. Your method is to say that the majority of the building likes vibrant colors and therefore everyone gets vibrant colors even though the majority of people on floors 1 through 3 prefer neutral colors.

Are you having trouble understanding that your entire point is why the electoral college is so outdated and useless. Again, you keep talking about compact population centers. Why on earth does it matter?

See above.

The Mormon Religion was founded and The Book of Mormon was written by a swindler, a con-man, and a general a criminal. Now why are Utah’s votes reflective of the way the rest of the country lives? How bout the voters in Alabama and Mississippi? Continually at the very bottom of every category in which a stat can be judged. Are they reflecting the way the rest of the country lives? God, no.

They aren't reflective of the way the rest of the country lives. They are reflective of where they live. Which is different from California or Indiana or Florida or Texas or Alaska or Hawaii or New York. You are making my point for me. Except you believe that California by way of its population packed into tight geographic areas, should be able to enforce its will at a federal level on all of those other states because of its population. See my flippant example up above. What is good for floors 4 and 5 isn't necessarily what floors 1 through 3 want. Why should 1 to 3 be forced to change how they want to live because of a bunch of people who don't share their floor?

Your point makes zero sense.

My point makes total sense and that is clear because you were unintentionally making my point for me. You are just so deep you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don’t understand why you keep repeating an irrelevant point.

There is nothing irrelevant about federalism. That is what gives strength to our system and why it is the most enduring system in history. You need to get it through your feeble mind that we are 50 democracies who have come together to form a more perfect union. There is no national democracy because we have no national vote. The states run all of it. The states created the federal government and the states hold the authority to call a constitutional convention and change it. We need to keep state government strong, not make states subservient to the federal government.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No, not exactly. Marvin and your argument is basically "if my state doesn't go the way I voted because an overwhelming majority of the people in my state tend to vote one way, then my vote doesn't count." That is nonsense.

It isn't that the vote doesn't count, the participation doesn't count. Candidates have no need, none, to come to Indiana or California. No need to try and get voters interested. We are totally irrelevant. How many times have you gone to a general election campaign rally in Indiana? In 2008 and 16 the primary had some visits. And I do think Obama made one visit in 2016 general.

I do not think it is good for democracy to have people so blatantly told they are totally irrelevant.

I want a way, some way, that addresses that problem.

You are as irrelevant as I. You I guess like the feeling that presidential candidates don't give a damn about your vote. Meanwhile, and yes it is primary elections but illustrates the point, Iowa gets huge ethanol subsidies because of this effect. When all those candidates go to Pennsylvania 50 times each campaign, you don't think they all have some "here's something I can promise PA" in their back pocket?

We are political flyover territory. 1968 I saw Bobby come to Columbus. It was a huge moment for me, I wish more Hoosiers had that opportunity. Even your family whose votes are as worthless as mine.

 

[IUCrazy2]

It isn't that the vote doesn't count, the participation doesn't count. Candidates have no need, none, to come to Indiana or California. No need to try and get voters interested. We are totally irrelevant. How many times have you gone to a general election campaign rally in Indiana? In 2008 and 16 the primary had some visits. And I do think Obama made one visit in 2016 general.

I do not think it is good for democracy to have people so blatantly told they are totally irrelevant.

I want a way, some way, that addresses that problem.

You are as irrelevant as I. You I guess like the feeling that presidential candidates don't give a damn about your vote. Meanwhile, and yes it is primary elections but illustrates the point, Iowa gets huge ethanol subsidies because of this effect. When all those candidates go to Pennsylvania 50 times each campaign, you don't think they all have some "here's something I can promise PA" in their back pocket?

We are political flyover territory. 1968 I saw Bobby come to Columbus. It was a huge moment for me, I wish more Hoosiers had that opportunity. Even your family whose votes are as worthless as mine.

There won't be any method you can come up with that won't create political fly over territory. You will just condense it down to cities or regions that are important instead of states. Politicians go where their appearance has an opportunity to impact votes in a major way. That doesn't change by going to the congressional level because the country has done quite a bit of self sorting on its own.

Edit to add: Take Indiana for instance. Only 1 congressional race was a contest where the winner had less than 60% of the total votes (Mrvan had 52.8% in IN-1). Every other candidate who won, won their district with a vote tally that was higher than 60% of the total. Victoria Spartz (my Congresswoman) was the next lowest at 61.1%. We still would not be getting attention if we broke the vote out. At best Gary might, but this year was an outlier for them. The GOP would have to be really comfortable in other places to be burning money up there.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There won't be any method you can come up with that won't create political fly over territory. You will just condense it down to cities or regions that are important instead of states. Politicians go where their appearance has an opportunity to impact votes in a major way. That doesn't change by going to the congressional level because the country has done quite a bit of self sorting on its own.

Edit to add: Take Indiana for instance. Only 1 congressional race was a contest where the winner had less than 60% of the total votes (Mrvan had 52.8% in IN-1). Every other candidate who won, won their district with a vote tally that was higher than 60% of the total. Victoria Spartz (my Congresswoman) was the next lowest at 61.1%. We still would not be getting attention if we broke the vote out. At best Gary might, but this year was an outlier for them. The GOP would have to be really comfortable in other places to be burning money up there.

That will lead to the gerrymander debate. Where, for the record, I said I am glad NY got slapped silly for screwing over voters, but FL did the same thing and got away.

But you are right, there will be flyover territory. The idea is to reduce it as much as possible.

 

[twenty02]

It isn't an irrelevant point. The system I espouse, the one we currently have, provides protections so that certain regions and people types do not have the ability to direct federal power by their numbers. For a flippant example, we live in a 5 story condo. The top 2 floors are smaller apartments and therefore more people are on those floors. The bottom 3 floors have larger apartments and therefore less people live on the bottom 3 floors than the top 2. A committee to paint the common areas is put together. The majority of the people in the bottom 3 floors prefer neutral colors and a majority of those on the top floors like vibrant colors. Your method is to say that the majority of the building likes vibrant colors and therefore everyone gets vibrant colors even though the majority of people on floors 1 through 3 prefer neutral colors.

See above.

They aren't reflective of the way the rest of the country lives. They are reflective of where they live. Which is different from California or Indiana or Florida or Texas or Alaska or Hawaii or New York. You are making my point for me. Except you believe that California by way of its population packed into tight geographic areas, should be able to enforce its will at a federal level on all of those other states because of its population. See my flippant example up above. What is good for floors 4 and 5 isn't necessarily what floors 1 through 3 want. Why should 1 to 3 be forced to change how they want to live because of a bunch of people who don't share their floor?

My point makes total sense and that is clear because you were unintentionally making my point for me. You are just so deep you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't think it really matters all that much, due to the EC proportionality based upon population..... would a popular vote for President really change that much? A candidate gets close to their proportional share of EC vote of the entire population... even if the turnout in a non-competitive state is very low.

Obviously we've had very close elections in recent years where it has changed the winner..... but candidates are going to go to where they think their voters are. The EC shrinks the map and I guess makes it a lot easier for campaigns to narrow their focus to a handful of states.... but I'm not convinced by either argument that it really matters a great deal.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I do not think it is good for democracy to have people so blatantly told they are totally irrelevant.

Well, you are an OWG but not as “O” as I am. As it turned out, this election turned on Gen X and Gen X voted based on abortion and student loan forgiveness. The Democrats have always been very good at identifying special interests and drilling down on those interests for votes. 2022 was no exception. Meanwhile the GOP focused on silly broad based issues like inflation, energy and crime.

The point is that us OWG’s are irrelevant and have been irrelevant for decades.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The point is that us OWG’s are irrelevant and have been irrelevant for decades.

Yep, it is true, Trump totally dominated the young Black vote and that gave him the win in 2016.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yep, it is true, Trump totally dominated the young Black vote and that gave him the win in 2016.

And to further the real power of us older guys,

The Federal Government Will Spend Half Its Budget On Older Adults In Ten Years

In 10 years, the federal government will spend half its budget on older adults. But it is more complicated that you think.

www.google.com

 

[DANC]

Unlike you, I understand history just fine. Your ilk presents alternative facts, parsed out personal commentary and revisionist history as you please to attempt to bolster your beliefs that are based in limited truths or no truth at all. It's a shame that time travel doesn't exist, a bunch of MAGA cult members could go back in time to join their brethren in the Nazi party - a party who used the same tactics.

Further, I don't care about "party" at all. I care about truth and reality - not a reality based on somebody else's delusion.

Sure you do, Timmy. Sure you do.

 

[DrHoops]

No, not exactly. Marvin and your argument is basically "if my state doesn't go the way I voted because an overwhelming majority of the people in my state tend to vote one way, then my vote doesn't count." That is nonsense.

No, you’ve got it backwards.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The system I espouse, the one we currently have, provides protections so that certain regions and people types do not have the ability to direct federal power by their numbers. For a flippant example, we live in a 5 story condo. The top 2 floors are smaller apartments and therefore more people are on those floors. The bottom 3 floors have larger apartments and therefore less people live on the bottom 3 floors than the top 2. A committee to paint the common areas is put together. The majority of the people in the bottom 3 floors prefer neutral colors and a majority of those on the top floors like vibrant colors. Your method is to say that the majority of the building likes vibrant colors and therefore everyone gets vibrant colors even though the majority of people on floors 1 through 3 prefer neutral colors.

And in your system, fewer people should control more people because they can afford bigger apartments.

 

[BigDoggyDogDude]

If we took a sledgehammer to the executive branch and all the associated federal agencies and their respective powers, people wouldn't worry so much about who sits in the WH. So as a compromise, let's start identifying federal agencies we can lay to rest.

 

[DrHoops]

It isn't an irrelevant point. The system I espouse, the one we currently have, provides protections so that certain regions and people types do not have the ability to direct federal power by their numbers. For a flippant example, we live in a 5 story condo. The top 2 floors are smaller apartments and therefore more people are on those floors. The bottom 3 floors have larger apartments and therefore less people live on the bottom 3 floors than the top 2. A committee to paint the common areas is put together. The majority of the people in the bottom 3 floors prefer neutral colors and a majority of those on the top floors like vibrant colors. Your method is to say that the majority of the building likes vibrant colors and therefore everyone gets vibrant colors even though the majority of people on floors 1 through 3 prefer neutral colors.

See above.

They aren't reflective of the way the rest of the country lives. They are reflective of where they live. Which is different from California or Indiana or Florida or Texas or Alaska or Hawaii or New York. You are making my point for me. Except you believe that California by way of its population packed into tight geographic areas, should be able to enforce its will at a federal level on all of those other states because of its population. See my flippant example up above. What is good for floors 4 and 5 isn't necessarily what floors 1 through 3 want. Why should 1 to 3 be forced to change how they want to live because of a bunch of people who don't share their floor?

My point makes total sense and that is clear because you were unintentionally making my point for me. You are just so deep you can't see the forest for the trees.

I am saying nothing of the sort.

If your point about “the way the rest of the country lives”, which is ridiculous on its face, wouldn’t incentivizing every person to use their exact same voting power reflect the way the country lives? What you seem to bee implying is that, say Ohio, Utah, Idaho, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Nevada are “the way the country lives”. That’s patently absurd. Every one of those states has their own identity and culture.

Your example of floors in a building is borne out every day in condo associations all across America. I have a good friend who is a professor at Georgia Tech. He lived in a condo building in Atlanta that an Indian family moved into. They liked cooking their traditional food, but the condo board, a densely populated group of people decided that the Indian people’s food doesn’t smell good to them. So they made the decision that they wrote into the bylaws that offensive smells were not allowed. Obviously aimed at the Indian people. The Indian family felt completely humiliated because although the new ruling didn’t explicitly mention anything about them, they understood the message. So they moved. How does that fit into your theoretical example?

 

[Crayfish57]

I am saying nothing of the sort.

If your point about “the way the rest of the country lives”, which is ridiculous on its face, wouldn’t incentivizing every person to use their exact same voting power reflect the way the country lives? What you seem to bee implying is that, say Ohio, Utah, Idaho, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Nevada are “the way the country lives”. That’s patently absurd. Every one of those states has their own identity and culture.

Your example of floors in a building is borne out every day in condo associations all across America. I have a good friend who is a professor at Georgia Tech. He lived in a condo building in Atlanta that an Indian family moved into. They liked cooking their traditional food, but the condo board, a densely populated group of people decided that the Indian people’s food doesn’t smell good to them. So they made the decision that they wrote into the bylaws that offensive smells were not allowed. Obviously aimed at the Indian people. The Indian family felt completely humiliated because although the new ruling didn’t explicitly mention anything about them, they understood the message. So they moved. How does that fit into your theoretical example?

Ever been stung by a dead BEE? You can you know.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I am saying nothing of the sort.

If your point about “the way the rest of the country lives”, which is ridiculous on its face, wouldn’t incentivizing every person to use their exact same voting power reflect the way the country lives? What you seem to bee implying is that, say Ohio, Utah, Idaho, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Nevada are “the way the country lives”. That’s patently absurd. Every one of those states has their own identity and culture.

California has the same population as 20 some odd other states. Those 20 some odd other states could vote their way of life and still be out voted because California. So **** them is your answer. And realize this becomes important when we discuss things like how we spend for things like energy and transportation and how we allocate land for use. If you can't see how those topics might be viewed differently in LA and NYC then they are in Helena, Montana then I can't help you.

Your example of floors in a building is borne out every day in condo associations all across America. I have a good friend who is a professor at Georgia Tech. He lived in a condo building in Atlanta that an Indian family moved into. They liked cooking their traditional food, but the condo board, a densely populated group of people decided that the Indian people’s food doesn’t smell good to them. So they made the decision that they wrote into the bylaws that offensive smells were not allowed. Obviously aimed at the Indian people. The Indian family felt completely humiliated because although the new ruling didn’t explicitly mention anything about them, they understood the message. So they moved. How does that fit into your theoretical example?

I don't know why you would have any issue in this example. More people voted that way and therefore what they decided was what went. No need to protect the voting interests of the minority (I don't mean that in a racial or ethnic sense even though that is how it played out in your example) because the majority has decided. Again, thank you for making my point for me with such a clear metaphor. Tyrrany of the majority which led to the offended minority withdrawing from the compact.

 

[Crayfish57]

California has the same population as 20 some odd other states. Those 20 some odd other states could vote their way of life and still be out voted because California. So **** them is your answer. And realize this becomes important when we discuss things like how we spend for things like energy and transportation and how we allocate land for use. If you can't see how those topics might be viewed differently in LA and NYC then they are in Helena, Montana then I can't help you.

I don't know why you would have any issue in this example. More people voted that way and therefore what they decided was what went. No need to protect the voting interests of the minority (I don't mean that in a racial or ethnic sense even though that is how it played out in your example) because the majority has decided. Again, thank you for making my point for me with such a clear metaphor. Tyrrany of the majority which led to the offended minority withdrawing from the compact.

Imagine living in a closed building and every day have some odor that offended everyone else. I remember elementary school and there was one Indian that rode the bus and he just reeked from the food he ate . It doesnt always have to be some racial thing , sometimes its just how it is. They spread liquid manure on fields in my area and have like 2 days to plow it under so the odor goes away. At some point things like that become an issue on a constant basis.