Democrat vs. Republican

Quote: Evenbob

I still use it on other forums. But you only use it here when I get under your skin. Why don't you just retire from this place and go bother some other forum with your trolling crap.

Why not continue to post under "Spike" as you did for many years at GG?

Oh wait, I get it...you're ashamed of all the stupid, ridiculous claims you made there.

Quote: AZDuffman

Uh, no. While I am sure blue state gerrymandered political districts would bias things somewhat my point is it would separate the Senate to being for the states with the House the people, as it was supposed to be.

Having Senators directly elected by voters of an entire state fulfills that purpose.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Having Senators directly elected by voters of an entire state fulfills that purpose.

No, it doesn't. It makes Senators depend on the popular vote, so they need to hand out pork. Have you read what I have posted in the thread? I'll dumb it down to your level. The Senate is supposed to represent the GOVERNMENT of the states. Make sure things like unfunded mandates do not happen, etc. Not get up there and scream about free college and student loan forgiveness like Pocahantis.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, it doesn't. It makes Senators depend on the popular vote, so they need to hand out pork. Have you read what I have posted in the thread? I'll dumb it down to your level. The Senate is supposed to represent the GOVERNMENT of the states. Make sure things like unfunded mandates do not happen, etc. Not get up there and scream about free college and student loan forgiveness like Pocahantis.

Don’t you think it’s really a combination of your point AND Geno’s point?

I understand why some people hate the EC
I understand why some people hate the ‘over representation’ in the Senate because of the ‘2 no matter your population’ concept.
I understand why some feel that gerrymandering of Congressional districts helps or hurts one side or the other.
I understand why some don’t like the SC justices being lifetime appointed

What I LIKE is the overall balance the above lead to, with the inherent checks and balances. It tends to work well. It takes a disastrous platform, like the Democrats used in 2024, for it to swing too far to one side. What is likely to happen is the Republicans will overuse their power, and the voters will ‘correct back’ in 2026.

Quote: SOOPOO

Don’t you think it’s really a combination of your point AND Geno’s point?

I understand why some people hate the EC
I understand why some people hate the ‘over representation’ in the Senate because of the ‘2 no matter your population’ concept.
I understand why some feel that gerrymandering of Congressional districts helps or hurts one side or the other.
I understand why some don’t like the SC justices being lifetime appointed

What I LIKE is the overall balance the above lead to, with the inherent checks and balances. It tends to work well. It takes a disastrous platform, like the Democrats used in 2024, for it to swing too far to one side. What is likely to happen is the Republicans will overuse their power, and the voters will ‘correct back’ in 2026.

The people that want to get rid of the EC never give a good reason. They just say "it is outdated." When the reason it exists is pointed out they simply repeat, "it is outdated." Now, it does occasionally cause a "misfire" where the popular vote winner loses from time to time. Too bad. Its more important thing, making candidates pay attention to more places, almost always works.

Being from WNY you should really get this. Candidates there rarely care much about anything north of the Tap. If NY elected its governor with some kind of hybrid where each county got weight then perhaps downstate would not keep sucking all the money and attention from the rest of the state. So it is with the EC. Had Hillary Clinton spoke to more of the nation she might have won. Instead she spoke well to CA, which gave her the popular vote margin, but ignored too many places.

The EC is genius. Popular vote for the Senate seems to fall under, "it seemed like a good idea at the time."

Quote: AZDuffman

The people that want to get rid of the EC never give a good reason. They just say "it is outdated." When the reason it exists is pointed out they simply repeat, "it is outdated." Now, it does occasionally cause a "misfire" where the popular vote winner loses from time to time. Too bad. Its more important thing, making candidates pay attention to more places, almost always works.

Being from WNY you should really get this. Candidates there rarely care much about anything north of the Tap. If NY elected its governor with some kind of hybrid where each county got weight then perhaps downstate would not keep sucking all the money and attention from the rest of the state. So it is with the EC. Had Hillary Clinton spoke to more of the nation she might have won. Instead she spoke well to CA, which gave her the popular vote margin, but ignored too many places.

The EC is genius. Popular vote for the Senate seems to fall under, "it seemed like a good idea at the time."

People who want to get rid of the EC have a CLEAR and SIMPLE argument. That the President should be picked by the majority of the voters. You might disagree, but you can’t say they don’t think they have a ‘good reason’. Funny you should mention NY State. You do realize the governor is from Buffalo, right? And it is a fact that NYC tends to subsidize the rest of the state, not the other way around. The cities of Buffalo and Niagara Falls are net drains on state resources, not assets.

Agree that, because we have an EC, the Republicans seem more aware of such in their plans. I say a gazillion Harris/Walz ads in NY. They should have used ZERO resources in NY. Taken EVERY dollar spent in NY, Cali, and spent them in Mich, Pa, etc…

Quote: SOOPOO

People who want to get rid of the EC have a CLEAR and SIMPLE argument. That the President should be picked by the majority of the voters. You might disagree, but you can’t say they don’t think they have a ‘good reason’. Funny you should mention NY State. You do realize the governor is from Buffalo, right? And it is a fact that NYC tends to subsidize the rest of the state, not the other way around. The cities of Buffalo and Niagara Falls are net drains on state resources, not assets.

Agree that, because we have an EC, the Republicans seem more aware of such in their plans. I say a gazillion Harris/Walz ads in NY. They should have used ZERO resources in NY. Taken EVERY dollar spent in NY, Cali, and spent them in Mich, Pa, etc…

That is their argument, but they cannot refute that the EC makes the vote and thus attention get spread out.

No idea where the NY Gov is from. Don't even know who it is. I stopped paying attention when I left Rochester and Wegman's behind. Wegnan's is coming to my city to follow me, but I digress. I also saw and lived all kinds of regs made for downstate that dragged upstate down. Both sides would be better off if the state split, though Albany would collapse.

Quote: AZDuffman

The EC is genius.

+100

Exactly! The Founding Fathers were Einstein-level geniuses for coming up with the Electoral College. I don't think any politician today would have had enough brain power to come up with the EC if they had been around back then.

Going to a national popular vote would lead to even dumber results than what we have already. Kinda like the 2014 NBA All-Star Game when Kobe Bryant (who had played only SIX games due to injury) was voted in as a starter by the idiotic fans when he clearly didn't deserve it. That's the type of stupid ass stuff we'd see with a national popular vote. 🤦‍♂️ An EC-style system would have prevented that.

It also cracks me up when low IQ libbies/wokies say that the Electoral College is "dumb". All that proves is how dumb they are. 😂😂

Quote: Shrek

Exactly! The Founding Fathers were Einstein-level geniuses for coming up with the Electoral College.

"Geniuses?"

Hardlhy.

Our congress with the house and senate is simply an Americanized version of what the founders were used to and from Jolly Old England with a house of commons, a house of lords, and a PM.

We call it president, not PM abd modified it to fit a representative democracy.

Not quite the same thing but similar.

Quote: missedhervee

"Geniuses?"

Hardlhy.
.

"Several Founding Fathers probably had genius level IQ's, with Benjamin Franklin,
Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison topping the list."