Random Politics & Religion #00

The electoral college system naturally gives individual states more leverage in the national stage. The same way Wyoming having 2 senators like California does.

United STATES of America.

Gore calls for skeptics to be "punished"



So much for the "tolerant" left.

The electoral college allows for gerrymandering and generally turns voting into a big damned mess. Also, allows those who lose the popular vote to win elections (see: 2000). Getting rid of the electoral college allows every vote to count.

Gore loses any credibility in his discussion of basing things on science and facts when he starts lauding the Catholic Church.

I think you missed my response.

I didn't miss your response, you're just wrong.

What happens in places like Texas is that a massive number of electoral votes are all given to one candidate (normally Republican) even though there are like a huge number of individual votes that went to someone else.

Meanwhile, in places like California, it's the opposite.

Eliminating the electoral college eliminates the "all or nothing" votes system and allows each vote in a state to count.

No one makes fun of my hero, George Washington. He said stay out of international affairs, you mooks failed to listen and now America has more pots of stewed ***boiling over than a Taco Bell!

You either get conquered like a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a sprawling empire.

How does it allow for "gerrymandering"?

I would disagree that it's a big mess. It certainly does allow for candidates to be capable of loosing the popular vote and still winning the election. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, especially when dead people and illegal aliens vote and vote often.

Doesn't matter, democracy is just mob rule, mob mentality and all.

There's always going to be a large number of people who's voices don't get heard.

Maybe, but we can at least minimize the extent.

Well, I suppose you're correct in a way. It doesn't "allow" for it, it's the product of it, really.


If you look at it cynically, sure. You can also say that it completely marginalizes those who don't happen to agree with their neighbors despite the fact that their vote matters every bit as much on a national level.

No it doesn't.

It allows higher population areas like NYC, LA, Houston, Philadelphia, Cleveland and so on to have a larger voice in national politics than the rest of the US. All of which have a higher Democrat population base. Which is pretty much the only reason why you would want to remove the electoral college system, it guarantees a Democrat victory in all races.

Those states already dominate with their large electoral votes though.

How?

How does it allow that?

Every vote there counts as much as every vote everywhere else.

In the electoral college system it allows those places to carry more weight because the people who don't live in cities virtually have no voice. Getting rid of the electoral college system allows a farmer in upstate New York's Republican vote to get counted alongside those who are in agreement with him in Iowa, and not get lost amidst a sea of hipsters in the Bronx.

Edit: But you have touched on a key point of why the right loves the electoral college. They know they'd lose most -- not all, but probably most -- true by-the-numbers votes.

"Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king."

See the white guilt will get you every time. You didn't have a choice in being born white ! Get over yourself kid ~

I recommend you not vote and tell everyone you didn't vote like we care !

White...guilt...what?

Uh, how does that hash? Currently if you live in NYS, you're almost incentivized not to vote because you're going to be drowned out by us downstate trash, making NYS not worth visiting in an election.

The point system makes so many states non-competitive we have to hear about Iowa, Florida and the other boring swing states. So much for an election when only a few states will really *count*.

White guilt was a phrase coined by MLK Jr. in which he warned of over emphasizing color/race.

That's dependent on voter turnout. you could have 1000 people vote in califonia and still have 55 electoral votes go to the winner. California, Texas and New York already have an advantage with the amount of electoral votes they get.

It's all about race. It's white guilt history month.

I always make sure I tell my galpals to spank me with the Constitution and then I whip out my limited government, low taxes and corporate domination.

To finish, I trickle down my family values all over her essential liberties. Then we cuddle under an American flag.

You must hang out with Nic Cage too much then !

What does the electoral college have to do with giving states more leverage on a national stage?

Got some proff to back that claim up? No? that's what I thought.

Wait for it: Citation needed !

Ok please continue.

TLDR something about Starbucks and race:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/starbucks-race-relations-customers-116140.html?hp=l6_4

(I don't know about you but I want to deal with racism while I'm drinking a venti coffee made with organic hippie coffee beans !)

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is taking on another fraught political debate, with his company launching a new initiative this week to get employees to discuss with customers the state of race relations in the United States.

“We at Starbucks should be willing to discuss these issues in America,” Schultz said in a company statement released Monday announcing its “Race Together” campaign.

Approximately 2,000 employees of the coffee chain have shared their concerns about racial issues at open forums in cities across the country, including St. Louis, where racial tensions have flared in nearby Ferguson; New York City, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles and Oakland, California.

The company ran full-page ads in The New York Times and USA Today and will partner with that publication, with the first “Race Together” supplement slated to publish Friday.

It’s not the first time Schultz’s company has waded into the national discussion. In 2013, Starbucks’ “Come Together” campaign urged an end to the government shutdown, a year after Washington, D.C., baristas wrote “come together” on cups during debt-ceiling talks.

The company came out in favor of same-sex marriage in 2012, joining Microsoft and Nike in supporting a legalization bill that passed in Washington state.
Authors:

There is a Starbucks near me filled with white people. I can't wait to discussion race problems !

Not as much as the population would do.

Electoral college system would give each state an automatic 2 votes. That's 100 votes right there. Then it gives the states an additional 435 to divide among each other, which an automatic 1 additional vote to go to each state. So, that means that 150 votes are automatically allocated and 385 are based by population density.

27.88% of the votes in an electoral college system are allocated based on the number of states, vs. 0% in a population voting system. That is a huge swing and also weakens the voting power of states like Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, and pretty much the entire Central, Midwest, and South sections of the USA, except Texas.

A very large significant voting power would be between two Democrat powerhouses: California and New England. And you are ok with that? Well, you are in one of the powerhouses, so I guess so...

We did it we ended racism that will be 4.99 !