Forget About Popular The Vote, Let's Look At The Geographic Vote !

a reply to: ksiezyc

You are exactly right.

I worded my original post wrong.

Higher crime rates is what I was referring too.

Disprove that correlation.

a reply to: Kali74

People go where they can make money, the rural areas have been hemorrhaging jobs most of my life.

You have a wife and kids you move to where you can provide for them..

Companies typically dont move to rural areas, due to lack of infrastructure, and there is a lack of infrastructure due to politicians not caring since there is no large easy to reach voting block... its a vicious cycle.

Personally I would rather die of exposure than live in any of those big population centers, but to each their own.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: rickymouse

WHAT?! Big cities enslaving the rest? You saw a bit too much of that juvenile dystopia-novel "The Hunger Games".

electoral college tries to balance

So this is the new narrative? How many kinds of stupid do your leaders think you (not you, rickymouse, please don't take it personally, its just a problem with people taking this for real) are?

I never read the Hunger games, I just look at what is going on in our country and evaluate it using logic. I also research past empires and societies a bit to see where people went wrong.

The people in Wisconsin who grow a lot of food live in small populated areas. The people in Milwaukee can not have more say so than all the rest of the people in the state who work the fields and raise cattle. The stockyards in Milwaukee are dependent on grains and the cows in the stockyards come from the farmers when they are about ten to twelve months old.

Milwaukee has a diverse culture, people do not tend to vote extremely lopsided so Milwaukee is not really a good example. But I am using Wisconsin because I know more of how to relate to that state because I lived there for a year and a half and met lots of people there.

The cities that are most polarized and liberal cannot control this country. Neither can the cities that are most conservative. We need balance, we need to keep all of our people working, not just the ones in the big cities that shuffle money around amongst themselves and eat more than they produce. Our country should not be having China make so much, the pollution there is terrible. We are destroying their environment by having them make all the stuff we need. We can make more of it here where we have more stringent environmental policies. The same with other countries, we are causing them to deplete their soils to make food for us. They work cheaper because the cost of living is less but in the end they will get screwed from making it harder for them to get nutritious foods from their land.

Small businesses used to be the backbone of this country, now importers and people selling things online has become the backbone. That is a dangerous direction to be going in, most empires were destroyed because of that practice and this fueled times where people were very poor in those areas. California's economy can crumble if China decides to raise their prices or if their people say enough is enough and quit poisoning their environment. That is a reality, sooner or later people in China are going to say no to selling so much it makes them sick. They are not dumb, they are complaining a lot and their people are good people.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

The cold hard facts put this in interesting perspective, I ask all Americans why should only 57 counties control all of America ?

It's funny how the tail wags the dog, eh? Tiny geography has the population, the crime, arts & culture, academia, and international travel.

But I agree that if elections were dominated by a handful of large cities it would be bad for the little guy.

That means tolerating the free speech of opportunistic demagogues who mislead the little guy with 30 years of conservative talk radio crap. That means tolerating the myopic intolerance of the roused rabble while waiting for The Force to balance itself. Again.

In the meantime, don't be too proud of this trump terror you've constructed. The temporary ability to troll your political enemies from the WH is insignificant next to the power of The Force.

a reply to: Kali74
Actually

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state's entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.

Update the Congressional delegation and it will update the electoral college. Otherwise it is as fair as it can be.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
A fresh perspective on the 2016 election

And how that looks

The cold hard facts put this in interesting perspective, I ask all Americans why should only 57 counties control all of America ?

This has made me think that maybe even a newer style election model is needed, each region is represented equally regardless of the population,
each county gets one vote, now the urban centers can't control the rest of the country.
At 1571 county wins; you win the presidency. Think of how that what change the way people ran for office?
No state or area of the country could be ignored anymore.

This is nonsense. One person one vote is how it should be. That's a democracy.

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
A fresh perspective on the 2016 election

And how that looks

The cold hard facts put this in interesting perspective, I ask all Americans why should only 57 counties control all of America ?

This has made me think that maybe even a newer style election model is needed, each region is represented equally regardless of the population,
each county gets one vote, now the urban centers can't control the rest of the country.
At 1571 county wins; you win the presidency. Think of how that what change the way people ran for office?
No state or area of the country could be ignored anymore.

This is nonsense. One person one vote is how it should be. That's a democracy.

Too bad the U.S. isn't a democracy...

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

If the counties were colored to show the make up of the vote in the county (i.e. %red, %blue, how much of the map would actually be purple?

Here's a different map showing vote totals:

That map makes a lot more sense.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
A fresh perspective on the 2016 election

And how that looks

The cold hard facts put this in interesting perspective, I ask all Americans why should only 57 counties control all of America ?

This has made me think that maybe even a newer style election model is needed, each region is represented equally regardless of the population,
each county gets one vote, now the urban centers can't control the rest of the country.
At 1571 county wins; you win the presidency. Think of how that what change the way people ran for office?
No state or area of the country could be ignored anymore.

This is nonsense. One person one vote is how it should be. That's a democracy.

Too bad the U.S. isn't a democracy...

So you don't want a democracy?

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
A fresh perspective on the 2016 election

And how that looks

The cold hard facts put this in interesting perspective, I ask all Americans why should only 57 counties control all of America ?

This has made me think that maybe even a newer style election model is needed, each region is represented equally regardless of the population,
each county gets one vote, now the urban centers can't control the rest of the country.
At 1571 county wins; you win the presidency. Think of how that what change the way people ran for office?
No state or area of the country could be ignored anymore.

This is nonsense. One person one vote is how it should be. That's a democracy.

Too bad the U.S. isn't a democracy...

So you don't want a democracy?

If it is a mob rules democracy, I know that I don't.
There was a point to what the founding fathers designed.

a reply to: plaindoughnut
Thanks but I will pass.

Luckily are forefathers were smarter than that. Mob rule doesn't work well

57 counties could control the outcome of that election.

If it was a popular vote election, the rest of the states/counties may as well not even participate. It would be pointless.

wow

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
A fresh perspective on the 2016 election

And how that looks

The cold hard facts put this in interesting perspective, I ask all Americans why should only 57 counties control all of America ?

This has made me think that maybe even a newer style election model is needed, each region is represented equally regardless of the population,
each county gets one vote, now the urban centers can't control the rest of the country.
At 1571 county wins; you win the presidency. Think of how that what change the way people ran for office?
No state or area of the country could be ignored anymore.

This is nonsense. One person one vote is how it should be. That's a democracy.

Too bad the U.S. isn't a democracy...

So you don't want a democracy?

Absolutely not. I prefer the Constitutional Republic in which I reside.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority.

Founding fathers also approved of slavery. And were obviously wrong about that.
And we rightfully ended it.
Did the founding fathers know We'd have cars? Planes? Internet?
The electoral college was designed to give slave states more power with less people in them.

One person. One vote.
Like every other democracy.

a reply to: plaindoughnut
Did you ever attend a civics class?

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: plaindoughnut
Did you ever attend a civics class?

Of course.
High-school and college.
But I also don't revere the founders as all seeing God men.
Things change with the times.

Read through the list of amendments added to the Constitution.

Just like we changed the way senators are voted in using popular vote, we will do the same for president eventually.

If not...all you need are enough states to agree to vote the way of the popular vote ans then you don't even need a constitutional amendment.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: plaindoughnut
Did you ever attend a civics class?

Of course.
High-school and college.
But I also don't revere the founders as all seeing God men.
Things change with the times.

Read through the list of amendments added to the Constitution.

The list of amendments that were properly proposed by a 2/3 vote and ratified by a 3/4 vote, you mean?

The process for change is there, follow it. It was made difficult DELIBERATELY.

Just like we changed the way senators are voted in using popular vote, we will do the same for president eventually.

Some people believe that the 17th disenfranchised the states who didn't ratify it.

If not...all you need are enough states to agree to vote the way of the popular vote ans then you don't even need a constitutional amendment.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Will never happen, since the smaller states won't vote against their self-interest.

Turns out that the Founders, while not perfect and definitely not "Gods", were pretty smart guys.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: plaindoughnut
Did you ever attend a civics class?

Of course.
High-school and college.
But I also don't revere the founders as all seeing God men.
Things change with the times.

Read through the list of amendments added to the Constitution.

The list of amendments that were properly proposed by a 2/3 vote and ratified by a 3/4 vote, you mean?

The process for change is there, follow it. It was made difficult DELIBERATELY.

Just like we changed the way senators are voted in using popular vote, we will do the same for president eventually.

Some people believe that the 17th disenfranchised the states who didn't ratify it.

If not...all you need are enough states to agree to vote the way of the popular vote ans then you don't even need a constitutional amendment.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Will never happen, since the smaller states won't vote against their self-interest.

Turns out that the Founders, while not perfect and definitely not "Gods", were pretty smart guys.

You don't need all the states. Just enough states that agree and make it law to add up to over 270.
It will happen eventually.

a reply to: DrStevenBrule

Not a crime map but the 2012 election results map...www.washingtonpost.com... _term=.ec69ced86157

So now geographic area is more important than actual voters? What kind of an argument is that?

Loving county, Texas has 82 people. Are you trying to tell me that Loving county should have more political power than Los Angeles county with 9.8 million?