|
Post by Kzach on Sept 3, 2019 1:20:45 GMT
Dems have won the popular vote for every presidential elections since 1992, with the exception of 2004. And that was an outlier cause "TERROR!". Data suggest it won't be different with a different voting system. But what are facts against feelings and truthiness? They've never won a popular vote, because there has never BEEN a popular vote. A true popular vote would have a very different voter turn out. So radically different that while the electoral college is in effect, no "popular vote" has any validity or meaning. But hammer that argument out. It is an easy one to make since you'll say you're right until a real election without the electoral college is held.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 4, 2019 13:16:09 GMT
They've never won a popular vote, because there has never BEEN a popular vote. A true popular vote would have a very different voter turn out. So radically different that while the electoral college is in effect, no "popular vote" has any validity or meaning. But hammer that argument out. It is an easy one to make since you'll say you're right be right, up until a real popular election without the electoral college is held , which will then show that you were right all along. You almost had that right. I'll fix it for you. It's a fact that things would be radically different without the electoral college. It's a fact that millions of Republicans are disenfranchised in New York and California, two of the most populous states in the country, and that huge number don't vote and don't bother to register to vote since voting is meaningless. It's also a fact that a good number of Democrats in Texas are under similar circumstances. The numbers in blue states are larger than red states, though, so you'd see a spike in Republican votes if you get rid of the college. Try using your brain sometime instead of regurgitating leftist talking points.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Sept 4, 2019 15:34:55 GMT
You almost had that right. I'll fix it for you. It's a fact that things would be radically different without the electoral college. It's a fact that millions of Republicans are disenfranchised in New York and California, two of the most populous states in the country, and that huge number don't vote and don't bother to register to vote since voting is meaningless. It's also a fact that a good number of Democrats in Texas are under similar circumstances. The numbers in blue states are larger than red states, though, so you'd see a spike in Republican votes if you get rid of the college. Try using your brain sometime instead of regurgitating leftist talking points. It's also true that there are likely far more Democrats than Republicans. You are much more likely to be Democrat in large cities, and the population of the cities is much more than that of rural areas. Also, consider how many "red" states have Democrat governors, but Republican senates and houses. There are 8 states like that. There are also 4 states that are the opposite, though those are small states. Most of the 8 with Democrat governors are larger states. These states make it look like there is gerrymandering making things happen the way that Republicans want, and that those states are in the process of flipping from red to blue. Take Michigan as an example. Both of its senators are Democrats, as is its governor, but both state houses are solidly Republican. Then there is the fact that on many issues, people in general prefer many of the progressive policies of Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 5, 2019 12:31:01 GMT
You almost had that right. I'll fix it for you. It's a fact that things would be radically different without the electoral college. It's a fact that millions of Republicans are disenfranchised in New York and California, two of the most populous states in the country, and that huge number don't vote and don't bother to register to vote since voting is meaningless. It's also a fact that a good number of Democrats in Texas are under similar circumstances. The numbers in blue states are larger than red states, though, so you'd see a spike in Republican votes if you get rid of the college. Try using your brain sometime instead of regurgitating leftist talking points. It's also true that there are likely far more Democrats than Republicans. You are much more likely to be Democrat in large cities, and the population of the cities is much more than that of rural areas. Also, consider how many "red" states have Democrat governors, but Republican senates and houses. There are 8 states like that. There are also 4 states that are the opposite, though those are small states. Most of the 8 with Democrat governors are larger states. These states make it look like there is gerrymandering making things happen the way that Republicans want, and that those states are in the process of flipping from red to blue. Take Michigan as an example. Both of its senators are Democrats, as is its governor, but both state houses are solidly Republican. Then there is the fact that on many issues, people in general prefer many of the progressive policies of Democrats. Those Democrats are already for the most part, voting. It's the disenfranchised people that get discouraged and stop voting and registering. As for gerrymandering disguising things, California is a prime example of that. The Democrats have arranged it so that they are basically a dictatorship here. There's no chance of Republicans winning more than a handful of seats in the legislature due to the fantastic gerrymandering that is going on. The only question during an election is, "Are the Democrats going to have a super majority in both houses, or just a huge majority?" As for states like Michigan, yes, let's take it. It has a total population of less than 10 million people. Los Angeles alone has more than that. There will be more(probably far more) disenfranchised Republicans in Los Angeles alone, than there are Disenfranchised Democrats in all of Michigan.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Sept 5, 2019 20:16:47 GMT
It's also true that there are likely far more Democrats than Republicans. You are much more likely to be Democrat in large cities, and the population of the cities is much more than that of rural areas. Also, consider how many "red" states have Democrat governors, but Republican senates and houses. There are 8 states like that. There are also 4 states that are the opposite, though those are small states. Most of the 8 with Democrat governors are larger states. These states make it look like there is gerrymandering making things happen the way that Republicans want, and that those states are in the process of flipping from red to blue. Take Michigan as an example. Both of its senators are Democrats, as is its governor, but both state houses are solidly Republican. Then there is the fact that on many issues, people in general prefer many of the progressive policies of Democrats. Those Democrats are already for the most part, voting. It's the disenfranchised people that get discouraged and stop voting and registering. As for gerrymandering disguising things, California is a prime example of that. The Democrats have arranged it so that they are basically a dictatorship here. How is that, exactly? An independent commission creates the districts, and the creation process is open.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Sept 5, 2019 21:11:41 GMT
It's also true that there are likely far more Democrats than Republicans. And that's exactly why the electoral college exists. To keep snobby city elites from dictating how the rural folk have to live.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Sept 5, 2019 23:10:00 GMT
It's also true that there are likely far more Democrats than Republicans. And that's exactly why the electoral college exists. To keep snobby city elites from dictating how the rural folk have to live. ROFLMAO. No, it was created so that the poor people couldn't choose a demagogue, or someone else the rich don't like. Hell, it's not even required by the Constitution for the electors sent to the electoral college to be chosen by a vote of the people. The Constitution allows the electors to be chosen however the individual states decide to choose them. This is what makes the laws passed by a number of states recently legal. Those laws give their electors to whomever wins the popular vote. If the number of states that have passed this kind of law exceeds the number of electors that are needed to elect the president, then the electoral college becomes a dinosaur.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Sept 5, 2019 23:11:25 GMT
It's also true that there are likely far more Democrats than Republicans. And that's exactly why the electoral college exists. To keep snobby city elites from dictating how the rural folk have to live. But it is ok when rural folks tell urban folks how to live thanks to the EC? Like how firearms sales and ownership can't be regulated? Moron.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Sept 6, 2019 5:13:37 GMT
But it is ok when rural folks tell urban folks how to live thanks to the EC? Like how firearms sales and ownership can't be regulated? Moron. "Can't be regulated"? Tell that to California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York*, you stupid motherfucker. They regulated the ownership of firearms in their jurisdictions just fine, and those "stupid redneck flyover states" had nothing to say about it. However those states weren't allowed to enforce their views on other states, which is my point you sad sack of wallaby droppings. And let's talk federal laws, since that was what I was talking about the electoral college helping with, despite the electoral college helping to keep the ivory tower leftists from ruling the country, all these laws have been passed restricting firearm ownership and sales: National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, suppressors, and disguised or improvised firearms. Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns. Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms. Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content. Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases, until the NCIC system was implemented in 1998. So yeah, regulation of firearms happens just fine without disbanded the electoral college you cross-eyed, inbred, descendent of the lowest rejects of Britain. * And New York is specifically why I'm against ownership registries and firearm license requirements, in 2013 GAWKER doxxed every legal fiream owner in New York state.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 6, 2019 11:58:54 GMT
Those Democrats are already for the most part, voting. It's the disenfranchised people that get discouraged and stop voting and registering. As for gerrymandering disguising things, California is a prime example of that. The Democrats have arranged it so that they are basically a dictatorship here. How is that, exactly? An independent commission creates the districts, and the creation process is open. That's cute. You actually believe, after looking at the intense district gerrymandering in favor of Democrats, that they are truly independent.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Sept 6, 2019 14:33:11 GMT
How is that, exactly? An independent commission creates the districts, and the creation process is open. That's cute. You actually believe, after looking at the intense district gerrymandering in favor of Democrats, that they are truly independent. A Republican can't understand why the Republican party isn't popular, so he blames gerrymandering instead. More news at 11.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Sept 6, 2019 22:28:21 GMT
How is that, exactly? An independent commission creates the districts, and the creation process is open. That's cute. You actually believe, after looking at the intense district gerrymandering in favor of Democrats, that they are truly independent. Gerrymandering to favor one party generally results in some pretty weird shapes for districts, often with fingers that are barely connected to the main body. Except for the 33rd district, California's districts don't look all that unusual in shape. You apparently have a problem with them. Why don't you point out something that actually shows it?
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 6, 2019 23:13:15 GMT
That's cute. You actually believe, after looking at the intense district gerrymandering in favor of Democrats, that they are truly independent. A Republican can't understand why the Republican party isn't popular, so he blames gerrymandering instead. More news at 11. I wouldn't know. I've never been Republican.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 6, 2019 23:20:26 GMT
That's cute. You actually believe, after looking at the intense district gerrymandering in favor of Democrats, that they are truly independent. Gerrymandering to favor one party generally results in some pretty weird shapes for districts, often with fingers that are barely connected to the main body. Except for the 33rd district, California's districts don't look all that unusual in shape. You apparently have a problem with them. Why don't you point out something that actually shows it?
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Sept 7, 2019 1:01:27 GMT
Gerrymandering to favor one party generally results in some pretty weird shapes for districts, often with fingers that are barely connected to the main body. Except for the 33rd district, California's districts don't look all that unusual in shape. You apparently have a problem with them. Why don't you point out something that actually shows it? I was looking at the US Congressional map, not the state map. The odd things I see on the state map probably has a lot to do with the rules that were given to the commission, and not the commission itself. And probably geographic features as well.
|
|