Be careful - you can get shot/killed anywhere/anytime

[daisylu]

I am not a fan of the electoral college, but nothing will ever be fair because society is always changing. Would it be more fair that each state gets 1 vote? As in the vote winner for each state gets 1 electoral vote? I think I would be ok with that.

[pulmonarymd]

That would be even more unequal than the current system. The voters in small states would have much more of a say than those in large states

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 28, 2023 12:21:27 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2023 12:11:24 GMT -5 scgal said:

Large states should not be overshadowing smaller states. The system is fair as it can be

_wow

Don't know why you are surprised. She has made it clear she does not care as long as she is the one who benefits

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 12:22:47 GMT -5 daisylu said:

I am not a fan of the electoral college, but nothing will ever be fair because society is always changing. Would it be more fair that each state gets 1 vote? As in the vote winner for each state gets 1 electoral vote? I think I would be ok with that.

To clearly state what you are proposing: The 39 million plus people in California get together and collectively decide who gets their one vote for president. The roughly 600,000 people of Wyoming collectively decide who gets their one vote. If I can do the math right, at a party a person from Wyoming gets a piece of cake and 65 people from California get an equally sided piece. Good with that?

[daisylu]

Jun 28, 2023 13:08:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2023 12:22:47 GMT -5 daisylu said:

I am not a fan of the electoral college, but nothing will ever be fair because society is always changing. Would it be more fair that each state gets 1 vote? As in the vote winner for each state gets 1 electoral vote? I think I would be ok with that.

To clearly state what you are proposing: The 39 million plus people in California get together and collectively decide who gets their one vote for president. The roughly 600,000 people of Wyoming collectively decide who gets their one vote. If I can do the math right, at a party a person from Wyoming gets a piece of cake and 65 people from California get an equally sided piece. Good with that?

Poorly worded on my part, without sarcasm. But those smaller states may start voting differently when they learn that the federal government subsidies stop. No easy answers here and the laws being what they are and nobody meeting in the middle how do we change things? We see how badly things have changed in some states since the overturn of RvW, which was set in 1973, but here we are allowing women to die in hospital parking lots. At least it would stop gerrymandering as a political tool.

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 13:42:15 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Jun 28, 2023 13:08:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

To clearly state what you are proposing: The 39 million plus people in California get together and collectively decide who gets their one vote for president. The roughly 600,000 people of Wyoming collectively decide who gets their one vote. If I can do the math right, at a party a person from Wyoming gets a piece of cake and 65 people from California get an equally sided piece. Good with that?

Poorly worded on my part, without sarcasm. But those smaller states may start voting differently when they learn that the federal government subsidies stop. No easy answers here and the laws being what they are and nobody meeting in the middle how do we change things? We see how badly things have changed in some states since the overturn of RvW, which was set in 1973, but here we are allowing women to die in hospital parking lots. At least it would stop gerrymandering as a political tool.

Not clear to what noun the "it" pronoun in the last sentence is connected. However if it is changing the Electoral College process, gerrymandering is not involved in the presidential election process.

EDIT: tallguy makes an important point in reply 1149 below which I missed. In the couple(?) of states which do apportion their Electoral College vote, gerrymandering can play a role.

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 12:21:27 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2023 12:11:24 GMT -5 scgal said:

Large states should not be overshadowing smaller states. The system is fair as it can be

_wow

Apparently you are able to find just as much logic and reason in her position as I am.  

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 11:19:29 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 9:52:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Here it is.  In response to another poster making the same incorrect argument:

For this very reason is why it needs to be this way. 1 state no matter how many people are in that state should not have more votes than 22 other states combined. You cannot have just the metropolitan areas have a super majority say over everything. The system is correct. 

STATES DON'T MATTER.  PEOPLE DO.

37 million people have 95 electoral votes.  39 million people have 55 electoral votes.  That is ALL that matters here.

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 28, 2023 13:42:15 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Jun 28, 2023 13:08:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

To clearly state what you are proposing: The 39 million plus people in California get together and collectively decide who gets their one vote for president. The roughly 600,000 people of Wyoming collectively decide who gets their one vote. If I can do the math right, at a party a person from Wyoming gets a piece of cake and 65 people from California get an equally sided piece. Good with that?

Poorly worded on my part, without sarcasm. But those smaller states may start voting differently when they learn that the federal government subsidies stop. No easy answers here and the laws being what they are and nobody meeting in the middle how do we change things? We see how badly things have changed in some states since the overturn of RvW, which was set in 1973, but here we are allowing women to die in hospital parking lots. At least it would stop gerrymandering as a political tool.

It changes when we vote in better people. At least 1/3 of our population does not vote in presidential elections. The number in off years are worse. The die hards vote regardless. The people who do not vote could make a huge difference. We would either get better candidates and representation, or things deteriorate, and then we would see what we get. But those in the middle who blame both sides, the apathetic, and those who don't vote because they want purity in their candidates make this problem worse.

There are more women than men in this country, and as we see from some female posters, they are ok with women being second class citizens since they vote that way. As a citizen of a state that subsidizes others. I say let them suffer the consequences of their votes

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 13:42:15 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Jun 28, 2023 13:08:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

To clearly state what you are proposing: The 39 million plus people in California get together and collectively decide who gets their one vote for president. The roughly 600,000 people of Wyoming collectively decide who gets their one vote. If I can do the math right, at a party a person from Wyoming gets a piece of cake and 65 people from California get an equally sided piece. Good with that?

Poorly worded on my part, without sarcasm. But those smaller states may start voting differently when they learn that the federal government subsidies stop. No easy answers here and the laws being what they are and nobody meeting in the middle how do we change things? We see how badly things have changed in some states since the overturn of RvW, which was set in 1973, but here we are allowing women to die in hospital parking lots. At least it would stop gerrymandering as a political tool.

If you are speaking of abolishing the Electoral College, it wouldn't.  Gerrymandering would still come into play for control of Congress and the passage of legislation.  And really, with almost all states using winner-take-all for their EC votes, gerrymandered districts play almost no role in presidential elections anyway.

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 13:50:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2023 13:42:15 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Poorly worded on my part, without sarcasm. But those smaller states may start voting differently when they learn that the federal government subsidies stop. No easy answers here and the laws being what they are and nobody meeting in the middle how do we change things? We see how badly things have changed in some states since the overturn of RvW, which was set in 1973, but here we are allowing women to die in hospital parking lots. At least it would stop gerrymandering as a political tool.

Not clear to what noun the "it" pronoun in the last sentence is connected. However if it is changing the Electoral College process, gerrymandering is not involved in the presidential election process.

EDIT: tallguy makes an important point in reply 1149 below which I missed. In the couple(?) of states which do apportion their Electoral College vote, gerrymandering can play a role.

I have my moments!   

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 14:01:16 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 28, 2023 12:21:27 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

_wow

Apparently you are able to find just as much logic and reason in her position as I am.  

As someone who has fully abandoned his birth state, I do struggle with idea of strongly identifying as a citizen of (pick a state). But I am able to do so to some degree on an intellectual level. I think it is an antiquated perspective with today's mobility but my two siblings are still rock hard Idaho spud heads. My real issue is with scgal not fully owning the consequences of the Electoral College system. As far as logic and reason, I think she is again operating on an emotional level.

[scgal]

Jun 28, 2023 14:41:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:01:16 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Apparently you are able to find just as much logic and reason in her position as I am.  

As someone who has fully abandoned his birth state, I do struggle with idea of strongly identifying as a citizen of (pick a state). But I am able to do so to some degree on an intellectual level. I think it is an antiquated perspective with today's mobility but my two siblings are still rock hard Idaho spud heads. My real issue is with scgal not fully owning the consequences of the Electoral College system. As far as logic and reason, I think she is again operating on an emotional level.

I don't think I operate on an emotional level maybe I do. Yet I think of the same for a lot people here. I too abandoned my birth state just happened to go to a nice thick red state. 

[scgal]

Jun 28, 2023 14:09:19 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jun 28, 2023 13:42:15 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Poorly worded on my part, without sarcasm. But those smaller states may start voting differently when they learn that the federal government subsidies stop. No easy answers here and the laws being what they are and nobody meeting in the middle how do we change things? We see how badly things have changed in some states since the overturn of RvW, which was set in 1973, but here we are allowing women to die in hospital parking lots. At least it would stop gerrymandering as a political tool.

It changes when we vote in better people. At least 1/3 of our population does not vote in presidential elections. The number in off years are worse. The die hards vote regardless. The people who do not vote could make a huge difference. We would either get better candidates and representation, or things deteriorate, and then we would see what we get. But those in the middle who blame both sides, the apathetic, and those who don't vote because they want purity in their candidates make this problem worse.

There are more women than men in this country, and as we see from some female posters, they are ok with women being second class citizens since they vote that way. As a citizen of a state that subsidizes others. I say let them suffer the consequences of their votes

Your first paragraph I would wholeheartedly agree with, although for different outcomes. The second I don't think women should be second class citizens. 

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 14:41:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:01:16 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Apparently you are able to find just as much logic and reason in her position as I am.  

As someone who has fully abandoned his birth state, I do struggle with idea of strongly identifying as a citizen of (pick a state). But I am able to do so to some degree on an intellectual level. I think it is an antiquated perspective with today's mobility but my two siblings are still rock hard Idaho spud heads. My real issue is with scgal not fully owning the consequences of the Electoral College system. As far as logic and reason, I think she is again operating on an emotional level.

To "not fully own" them is one thing.  To be blatantly wrong, have multiple people explain it in detail, and then completely misunderstand or misinterpret (to be as charitable as possible) the facts that have just been presented, is another.  "Operating on an emotional level" is death to a philosophical argument.  It NEVER serves well.

[chiver78]

Jun 28, 2023 14:49:53 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:09:19 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

It changes when we vote in better people. At least 1/3 of our population does not vote in presidential elections. The number in off years are worse. The die hards vote regardless. The people who do not vote could make a huge difference. We would either get better candidates and representation, or things deteriorate, and then we would see what we get. But those in the middle who blame both sides, the apathetic, and those who don't vote because they want purity in their candidates make this problem worse.

There are more women than men in this country, and as we see from some female posters, they are ok with women being second class citizens since they vote that way. As a citizen of a state that subsidizes others. I say let them suffer the consequences of their votes

Your first paragraph I would wholeheartedly agree with, although for different outcomes. The second I don't think women should be second class citizens. 

you come right out and say exactly that when you say that a woman loses her bodily autonomy when she becomes pregnant. what is that, other than being a second class citizen where her own rights and autonomy don't come first? 

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 14:52:06 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:41:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

As someone who has fully abandoned his birth state, I do struggle with idea of strongly identifying as a citizen of (pick a state). But I am able to do so to some degree on an intellectual level. I think it is an antiquated perspective with today's mobility but my two siblings are still rock hard Idaho spud heads. My real issue is with scgal not fully owning the consequences of the Electoral College system. As far as logic and reason, I think she is again operating on an emotional level.

To "not fully own" them is one thing.  To be blatantly wrong, have multiple people explain it in detail, and then completely misunderstand or misinterpret (to be as charitable as possible) the facts that have just been presented, is another.  "Operating on an emotional level" is death to a philosophical argument.  It NEVER serves well.

In what is she wrong?

[scgal]

Jun 28, 2023 14:05:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 28, 2023 11:19:29 GMT -5 scgal said:

For this very reason is why it needs to be this way. 1 state no matter how many people are in that state should not have more votes than 22 other states combined. You cannot have just the metropolitan areas have a super majority say over everything. The system is correct. 

STATES DON'T MATTER.  PEOPLE DO.

37 million people have 95 electoral votes.  39 million people have 55 electoral votes.  That is ALL that matters here.

No the country needs to be looked at as a whole. Actually those 22 states should have more electoral votes. The only problem I have is that the top 11 or 12 states has enough votes to win the presidency. It should be majority of actual states

[scgal]

Jun 28, 2023 14:54:55 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:49:53 GMT -5 scgal said:

Your first paragraph I would wholeheartedly agree with, although for different outcomes. The second I don't think women should be second class citizens. 

you come right out and say exactly that when you say that a woman loses her bodily autonomy when she becomes pregnant. what is that, other than being a second class citizen where her own rights and autonomy don't come first? 

It has nothing to do with autonomy. You just don't get to kill a child. It is perverse. 

[pulmonarymd]

1 Why?
2 If the country should be looked at as a whole, and everybody is equal, the it should be 1 person/1 vote. Not Wyoming gets 60 votes to California's 1. Because that is exactly what is happening now.

[scgal]

Jun 28, 2023 14:52:06 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:41:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

As someone who has fully abandoned his birth state, I do struggle with idea of strongly identifying as a citizen of (pick a state). But I am able to do so to some degree on an intellectual level. I think it is an antiquated perspective with today's mobility but my two siblings are still rock hard Idaho spud heads. My real issue is with scgal not fully owning the consequences of the Electoral College system. As far as logic and reason, I think she is again operating on an emotional level.

To "not fully own" them is one thing.  To be blatantly wrong, have multiple people explain it in detail, and then completely misunderstand or misinterpret (to be as charitable as possible) the facts that have just been presented, is another.  "Operating on an emotional level" is death to a philosophical argument.  It NEVER serves well.

The multiple people who "think" they are right is a joke. I get told all the time on here i'm wrong in my thinking you all are the intelligent ones who will skillfully let me know just how right you are. Yet here we are with an electoral college system who millions understand and agree with, anti abortion who millions know is wrong yet for some reason you here are always the correct ones. What a crock of poop. 

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 14:58:37 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:05:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

STATES DON'T MATTER.  PEOPLE DO.

37 million people have 95 electoral votes.  39 million people have 55 electoral votes.  That is ALL that matters here.

No the country needs to be looked at as a whole. Actually those 22 states should have more electoral votes. The only problem I have is that the top 11 or 12 states has enough votes to win the presidency. It should be majority of actual states

Which is EXACTLY why the Electoral College should be abolished.  One person, one vote is critical to democracy.  What we have is 50+ different standards of how much a vote is worth.  And again, STATES DON"T MATTER.  PEOPLE DO.  The vote of one person should be worth the same as the vote of any other whether they are in California, Wyoming, South Carolina, or anywhere else.  They are not now, and never will be under the current EC system.  

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 28, 2023 15:06:03 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:52:06 GMT -5 tallguy said:

To "not fully own" them is one thing.  To be blatantly wrong, have multiple people explain it in detail, and then completely misunderstand or misinterpret (to be as charitable as possible) the facts that have just been presented, is another.  "Operating on an emotional level" is death to a philosophical argument.  It NEVER serves well.

The multiple people who "think" they are right is a joke. I get told all the time on here i'm wrong in my thinking you all are the intelligent ones who will skillfully let me know just how right you are. Yet here we are with an electoral college system who millions understand and agree with, anti abortion who millions know is wrong yet for some reason you here are always the correct ones. What a crock of poop. 

Yet more think it is right, and the numbers are increasing. Although you will not accept that. 

Remember, the majority thought slavery was allowable at one time.
Women should not be allowed to vote.
African Americans were not as intelligent as whites.
The sun orbited the earth
The earth was flat
Disease was caused by vapors.

Citing the majority as to why you are right means nothing

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 15:06:03 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:52:06 GMT -5 tallguy said:

To "not fully own" them is one thing.  To be blatantly wrong, have multiple people explain it in detail, and then completely misunderstand or misinterpret (to be as charitable as possible) the facts that have just been presented, is another.  "Operating on an emotional level" is death to a philosophical argument.  It NEVER serves well.

The multiple people who "think" they are right is a joke. I get told all the time on here i'm wrong in my thinking you all are the intelligent ones who will skillfully let me know just how right you are. Yet here we are with an electoral college system who millions understand and agree with, anti abortion who millions know is wrong yet for some reason you here are always the correct ones. What a crock of poop. 

Well, to be fair, that is only because you continually prove it.  Can't really blame us for that part.

And yes, I will agree with you on one thing you posted here.  Millions do know that anti-abortion is wrong, at least if you believe in a free society.  Thank you for admitting that.

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 15:13:33 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jun 28, 2023 15:06:03 GMT -5 scgal said:

The multiple people who "think" they are right is a joke. I get told all the time on here i'm wrong in my thinking you all are the intelligent ones who will skillfully let me know just how right you are. Yet here we are with an electoral college system who millions understand and agree with, anti abortion who millions know is wrong yet for some reason you here are always the correct ones. What a crock of poop. 

Yet more think it is right, and the numbers are increasing. Although you will not accept that. 

Remember, the majority thought slavery was allowable at one time.
Women should not be allowed to vote.
African Americans were not as intelligent as whites.
The sun orbited the earth
The earth was flat
Disease was caused by vapors.

Citing the majority as to why you are right means nothing

She is not citing the majority, since the majority is CLEARLY not in favor of outlawing abortion.

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 14:57:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:52:06 GMT -5 tallguy said:

To "not fully own" them is one thing.  To be blatantly wrong, have multiple people explain it in detail, and then completely misunderstand or misinterpret (to be as charitable as possible) the facts that have just been presented, is another.  "Operating on an emotional level" is death to a philosophical argument.  It NEVER serves well.

In what is she wrong?

Claiming that small states are grossly disadvantaged and should be given even more power to balance things out?  How much more wrong can she be on this issue than that?

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 14:47:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:41:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

As someone who has fully abandoned his birth state, I do struggle with idea of strongly identifying as a citizen of (pick a state). But I am able to do so to some degree on an intellectual level. I think it is an antiquated perspective with today's mobility but my two siblings are still rock hard Idaho spud heads. My real issue is with scgal not fully owning the consequences of the Electoral College system. As far as logic and reason, I think she is again operating on an emotional level.

I don't think I operate on an emotional level maybe I do. Yet I think of the same for a lot people here. I too abandoned my birth state just happened to go to a nice thick red state. 

Okay, if not emotional please explain the logical and reasoned principle behind states taking precedence over individual voters in presidential elections.

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 15:22:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 28, 2023 14:57:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

In what is she wrong?

Claiming that small states are grossly disadvantaged and should be given even more power to balance things out?  How much more wrong can she be on this issue than that?

Small states are disadvantaged (grossly is subjective). "Should" reflects opinion. While I fully agree with your opinion that individuals not states should take precedence, it is still just an opinion that she disagrees with.

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 28, 2023 15:18:37 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 28, 2023 15:13:33 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Yet more think it is right, and the numbers are increasing. Although you will not accept that. 

Remember, the majority thought slavery was allowable at one time.
Women should not be allowed to vote.
African Americans were not as intelligent as whites.
The sun orbited the earth
The earth was flat
Disease was caused by vapors.

Citing the majority as to why you are right means nothing

She is not citing the majority, since the majority is CLEARLY not in favor of outlawing abortion.

It is inarticulate and confusing, but I believe she is trying to say that she is right because millions of people are against abortion like she is

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 15:32:14 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2023 15:22:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Claiming that small states are grossly disadvantaged and should be given even more power to balance things out?  How much more wrong can she be on this issue than that?

Small states are disadvantaged (grossly is subjective). "Should" reflects opinion. While I fully agree with your opinion that individuals not states should take precedence, it is still just an opinion that she disagrees with.

No, small states are over-represented under the EC.  That is clearly true as I showed earlier.  Added together, two million fewer people have 40 more electoral votes.  That is not an "opinion" that one can simply disagree with.