• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sandbar said:
Actually America is a Republic with an electoral college. That was put in place by the founders so that our elections dont become "popularity contest". You dont think the GOP has a chance of flipping it back? Based on what? All the hard work the democrats have been putting in?
Click to expand...
And thank goodness for the electoral college or all elections would basically be decided by NY and CA, those 2 states skew the popular vote immensely.
 
Rain Cold said:
This is what happens when a political system nears its end. We the People have been asleep at the wheel for far too long. We have been lulled into a sense of complacency and invincibility through the comforts and distractions that being the world power has afforded. We've let corruption exceed the threshold for being able to be reversed. And finally, people are waking up to it. Unfortunately, instead of coming together to fight it, we're turning on each other. It's going to get ugly.
Click to expand...
It's this stuff I worry about. People are constantly trying to pick sides and trash one another when we are all on the same team. I'm pretty sure Washington would be shameful of what our nation has become if he saw what political parties did to it. We are the United States of America, not the Divided states of America like so many seem to be seeing it. I'm not sure our political system is going to survive another 100 years, let alone another 50 with all the corruption and divisiveness and the influence media outlets have. Every single one of them is biased and adds gasoline to the fire with their main "anchors" if you can call them that. People don't think too freely and what's around them influences them and sets them on a path of following the loudest noise.
 
The popular vote can't be screwed, it's the electoral that is skewed. Voters in Wyoming have more representation than voters in California. There is almost three times as many voters in California for each electoral vote as there is in Wyoming
 
Heelyes said:
The popular vote can't be screwed, it's the electoral that is skewed. Voters in Wyoming have more representation than voters in California. There is almost three times as many voters in California for each electoral vote as there is in Wyoming
Click to expand...
So you're saying California with 55 votes has less influence than a state with 3 and nearly the same voter turnout in 2016? I'm not sure I follow.
 
ForsythSnow said:
So you're saying California with 55 votes has less influence than a state with 3 and nearly the same voter turnout in 2016? I'm not sure I follow.
Click to expand...
There is more voters per electoral vote in California. In Wyoming a electoral vote represents fewer people than in California, so that means a voter in Wyoming carries more weight than a voter in California
 
ForsythSnow said:
It's this stuff I worry about. People are constantly trying to pick sides and trash one another when we are all on the same team. I'm pretty sure Washington would be shameful of what our nation has become if he saw what political parties did to it. We are the United States of America, not the Divided states of America like so many seem to be seeing it. I'm not sure our political system is going to survive another 100 years, let alone another 50 with all the corruption and divisiveness and the influence media outlets have. Every single one of them is biased and adds gasoline to the fire with their main "anchors" if you can call them that. People don't think too freely and what's around them influences them and sets them on a path of following the loudest noise.
Click to expand...
Once people lose trust in the system, it's not coming back without some kind of major reset/collapse/civil war/etc. For a while, the distrust has been mainly at the fringe. It is now becoming more mainstream. Politicians and media are starting to recognize it. Due to this fact, they are weaponizing it. At the same time, as people's distrust grows, everything becomes tainted. You don't know which information is true and which isn't. Politicians, media, corporations, outside agents, all seeing this develop, perpetuate it by sowing disinformation and increasing their attacks against opponents. Proposed solutions become more extreme and more preposterous. Yet, actually solving the problems somehow magically always stays just out of reach. So, problems persist, frustration abounds, and the hate from on side to the other continues to rise.

The general atmosphere of confusion fuels greater distrust. It's a spiral from which there is no escape. Coupled with an economic backdrop of a widening wealth gap, where the top of the pyramid continue to pull away from the rest of the pyramid, at the expense of the rest of it, anger rises. Now, you have an angry, distrusting, confused population, a political corporatocracy at peak corruption, a declining economy, against a world with rising geopolitical instability. All that's left is a serious environmental issue, and that may be on its way. What does this lead to? Where does it go?
 
Last edited:
Heelyes said:
There is more voters per electoral vote in California. In Wyoming a electoral vote represents fewer people than in California, so that means a voter in Wyoming carries more weight than a voter in California
Click to expand...
Yes but that'll change after the 2020 census is complete like it always does. It makes sense that it being 2019 a state with faster growth would slowly diminish representation on a constant but there's really not that much difference unless that state has rapid population growth.
 
The popular vote could be misleading, if in the deep blue states that are the most populated Republican voters don't vote because they don't see a need to. I can see this being very possible but the bottom line is the popular vote is a accurate representation of the people who actually vote.
 
Rain Cold said:
Once people lose trust in the system, it's not coming back without some kind of major reset/collapse/civil war/etc. For a while, the distrust has been mainly at the fringe. It is now becoming more mainstream. Politicians and media are starting to recognize it. Due to this fact, they are weaponizing it. At the same time, as people's distrust grows, everything becomes tainted. You don't know which information is true and which isn't. Politicians, media, corporations, outside agents, all seeing this develop, perpetuate it by sewing disinformation. The general atmosphere of confusion fuels greater distrust. It's a spiral from which there is no escape. Coupled with an economic backdrop of a widening wealth gap, where the top of the pyramid continue to pull away from the rest of the pyramid, at the expense of the rest of it, anger arises. Now, you have an angry, distrusting, confused population, a political corporatocracy at peak corruption, a declining economy, against a world with rising geopolitical instability. All that's left is a serious environmental issue, and that may be on its way. What does this lead to? Where does it go?
Click to expand...
Yeah just wait until a president withholds aid because the state is of an opposing viewpoint. We already see it with private economics in which companies boycott a state because they put a law into place that doesn't meet their local views. Just take the recent abortion law in Georgia that was shot down later as an example. From what I heard some companies and film companies were wanting to pack up because of it. If a little change like that makes a company want to leave, when will a quake on the west coast or a major hurricane to the south, or a flood in the plains cause a president to say "no aid for you unless you pass these laws"? I am aware this happened post civil war but with reconstruction, but if you shove this into a dividing nation, it'll break and that state or those states will rebel to survive. Other states would take sides and we would likely have a second civil war.
 
SETNwx said:
you did notice the popular vote in 2016? Not going to happen. House has zero chance of going GOP anytime soon. Senate will cave in a few sessions too. If you don't like it, move to Canada, where homogeneity is more accepted. America is democracy for everyone. And the demographics aren't in the GOP's favor. Unless they go full Hitler, and even my dumb ass doesn't think Trump is full Hitler.
Click to expand...

Huh? The house historically flips every few years as does the Senate. The nation wide popular vote means absolutely nothing here.
 
There is one electoral vote for every 200000 voters in Wyoming, in California one electoral vote represents over 700000 voters
 
California has almost as many people as there was voters for each candidate in the last election. This tells us two things, California is bigger than many countries and not many people vote in this country.
 
If California was represented the same way as Wyoming it would have over 150 electoral votes. I'm glad it doesn't but I only brought it up to demonstrate how the electoral is less representative of the people than the popular vote.
 
Heelyes said:
If California was represented the same way as Wyoming it would have over 150 electoral votes. I'm glad it doesn't but I only brought it up to demonstrate how the electoral is less representative of the people than the popular vote.
Click to expand...
But as I noted, the electoral vote has a min of 3 per state and increases based on population. Comparing Wyoming or any other 3 vote state isn't really a fair comparison and even if you put every 3 vote state vs California, it would still win over both popularly and electorally. If you make the popular vote a thing, Texas, NY, California, and Florida would run a large portion of the elections, with some middle sized states having a little power, and small states having little to no voice. How fair would that sound?
 
ForsythSnow said:
But as I noted, the electoral vote has a min of 3 per state and increases based on population. Comparing Wyoming or any other 3 vote state isn't really a fair comparison and even if you put every 3 vote state vs California, it would still win over both popularly and electorally. If you make the popular vote a thing, Texas, NY, California, and Florida would run a large portion of the elections, with some middle sized states having a little power, and small states having little to no voice. How fair would that sound?
Click to expand...
I completely understand what you're saying and I'm not advocating less representation for the small states. I was only referring to the popular vote being skewed. The electoral is less representative of the will of the voter than the popular vote.
 
ForsythSnow said:
But as I noted, the electoral vote has a min of 3 per state and increases based on population. Comparing Wyoming or any other 3 vote state isn't really a fair comparison and even if you put every 3 vote state vs California, it would still win over both popularly and electorally. If you make the popular vote a thing, Texas, NY, California, and Florida would run a large portion of the elections, with some middle sized states having a little power, and small states having little to no voice. How fair would that sound?
Click to expand...
The EC isn't perfect, but it is better, IMO, than having the same states (or any state or set of states) so easily dictate the outcome of the election.
 
Rain Cold said:
The EC isn't perfect, but it is better, IMO, than having the same states (or any state or set of states) so easily dictate the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...
It's not perfect but it's the best system in the world. The only improvement I can think of would be not giving all the votes to the winner of the state. If the votes were awarded based on proportion of votes it may be different or it may not
 
Heelyes said:
I completely understand what you're saying and I'm not advocating less representation for the small states. I was only referring to the popular vote being skewed. The electoral is less representative of the will of the voter than the popular vote.
Click to expand...

If this is the case why don't we just create a capital (Pan Am) in California, break the rest of the country into 12 districts and those 12 districts just do whatever Pan Am desires? If most of the people live in Pan Am and they want certain things to be a certain way then that must be what the other 12 districts need too right? You think the popular vote is a good representative? I am willing to bet that if that "popularity" swung in a direction distant from your views, you would be clinging to that electoral college like your life depended upon it. If 100 million people voted and 80 million of them were idiots from 1 area of the country that sits well with you?
 
Sandbar said:
This isn't Watergate it's a phone call. First they tried a porn star, then Mueller spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars so we could watch him mumble on TV. Then is was kids in cages. The Democrats have thrown everything they can think of since DAY FRIGGIN 1. So go ahead, roger up and impeach NOW so the duly elected President can focus on running the country. I get that they want to drag it out into next year because they are cowards but the country and President deserve better
Click to expand...

This is way worse than Watergate. This is a president using a shadow diplomacy team to not only try to pressure Ukraine into investigating the bidens but holding aid to do so. All while trying to remove key figures In ukraines main gas company to further line trumps buddies pockets.

Why is Parnas claiming executive privilege in his defense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top