Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: States attempting to change voting rules for 2016 election

  1. -11
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    Keep the electorial college. Just have the federal government make the rules the same for every state. Rigging the system (like the GOP has tried to do for over a year and plans to continue attempting for the next 4 years) hurts everyone, no matter what their political leanings are.

    Again, totalitarian rule, etc etc etc.
    I'd be all for it...both sides have rigged and redistrcited to the point of being obscene. Too bad they will never propose it nor let it happen. Powers corrupts...that old chestnut


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,498
    vCash:
    24673
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Didn't you hear? Those jackasses and scoundrels left you ways to change things, just in case you didnt like what they gave you. But then, it is easier to bitch and belittle than it is to actually take a stand
    I've been pretty clear that I stand for a popular vote system.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,498
    vCash:
    24673
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    I love how people think just switching to a popular vote is the fix for everything. You all skip 2 major points.

    1) Middle America will be pissed because their voices wont weigh the same as populated metropolitan centers. Their agendas wont advance (not an alltogether bad thing from my standpoint. Im all for cleaning up subsidies)

    2) Why does it matter? As long as we limit ourselves to two parties, were always going to elect someone beholden to the special interest groups and lobbies, and not to US
    It won't fix everything, obviously. Who's saying that?

    But I don't think it will happen. The states that are swing states like that they're swing states. They get the money and the attention. And conservative states as a whole wouldn't go for it because they're the ones that benefit the most from an electoral college system. If you look at the amount of population per electoral vote, the liberal states are the ones "penalized" the most. I don't have the chart handy but I seem to remember that a vote in Wyoming is worth about three times as much as a vote in California, electorally.

    The best part about it is I think it would raise turnout. If you live in a state where the presidential outcome is already predetermined, that has a negative impact on your motivation to vote. A popular vote system would give everyone an equal shot of affecting the outcome. The downside (which you're alluding to) would be that the middle of the country (so-called "flyover country") would be fairly well ignored in exchange for a bigger focus on metropolitan centers.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -14
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Everyone wants a hand in the kitty......look at the districs in Virginia in 1983 (the first year i was allowed to vote in Virginia) versus the districts now. No contiguous lines existed then and they dont exist now....the state is carved up by both parties when theyre in power to serve their own (politicians) interests.

    This bill is not a new idea...it was floated by Dems when they had power to. Bad ideas dont go away, they just hibernate until the idiots are awakened
    Quote Quote  

  5. -15
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    11,475
    vCash:
    3598
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    The founding fathers made the Electoral College because they realized the majority does not always have the best interests of the minority at heart, the college was an effort to quell this from happening. if they don't want to vote for the majority vote just don't. 24 states currently have no laws on the books making electors vote for the popular vote, the college electors at least in the case of 24 states can vote for anyone regardless of popular vote.

    The problem is no one has had the balls to go against the voters in this method because they are afraid to loose said balls in the riot that is likely to ensue.
    Peace and Humptiness Forever


    Quote Quote  

  6. -16
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,498
    vCash:
    24673
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NY8123 View Post
    The founding fathers made the Electoral College because they realized the majority does not always have the best interests of the minority at heart, the college was an effort to quell this from happening. if they don't want to vote for the majority vote just don't. 24 states currently have no laws on the books making electors vote for the popular vote, the college electors at least in the case of 24 states can vote for anyone regardless of popular vote.
    As a practical matter, though, I believe the electors are chosen by the respective parties, and they pick loyalists. If I'm not mistaken however, the rationale behind the electoral college though wasn't to protect the minority, it was a check in case the majority picked someone that educated landowners (who were the electors in the early days) felt completely objectionable. That's a little different.

    The problem is no one has had the balls to go against the voters in this method because they are afraid to loose said balls in the riot that is likely to ensue.
    I can only think of one instance where an elector went against who had won his state, and that's when James Monroe swept every state. One of the electors felt only Washington should get every electoral college vote so he voted for the other guy. No one has won every state since.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -17
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    11,475
    vCash:
    3598
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    As a practical matter, though, I believe the electors are chosen by the respective parties, and they pick loyalists. If I'm not mistaken however, the rationale behind the electoral college though wasn't to protect the minority, it was a check in case the majority picked someone that educated landowners (who were the electors in the early days) felt completely objectionable. That's a little different.



    I can only think of one instance where an elector went against who had won his state, and that's when James Monroe swept every state. One of the electors felt only Washington should get every electoral college vote so he voted for the other guy. No one has won every state since.
    Like I said the minority.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -18
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,498
    vCash:
    24673
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NY8123 View Post
    Like I said the minority.
    There's a bit of difference between protecting the minority generally and protecting yourself when you're a part of the minority. The founders were doing the latter. It would be like saying my support for civil rights is the same whether I'm a minority or not.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -19
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    11,475
    vCash:
    3598
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    There's a bit of difference between protecting the minority generally and protecting yourself when you're a part of the minority. The founders were doing the latter. It would be like saying my support for civil rights is the same whether I'm a minority or not.
    Lol silly Walrus did you think I meant the Ethnic minority lol. I meant the rich white minority.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Byproduct of Obama Election = 2016 Olympics?
    By LouPhinFan in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-05-2008, 05:10 PM
  2. Florida tops states in concerns sent to pre-election hot line
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 02:14 AM
  3. Would You Consider Voting For a Republican next election
    By DolFan31 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 07-25-2005, 02:42 PM
  4. Would You Consider Voting For a Republican next election?
    By DolFan31 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-22-2005, 01:53 PM
  5. JESSE VENTURA doesnt plan on VOTING in this upcoming ELECTION.
    By DolFan31 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-27-2004, 06:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •