Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

US Politics Thread: Year 2 of 1000 of the TrumpenReich

Recommended Posts

Yeah. If this legislation passes, the voters of the State of Colorado have essentially been disenfranchised. 

 

Also, I can't see how that would pass Constitutional muster at least at the State constitutional level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might actually work in our benefit for a little bit. Colorado has one of the shittiest voting systems. All voting is done by mail in ballot, and we have same day voter registration, so it's hilariously easy to stuff ballots. But, assuming that this crazy voter fraud gets put down before the next election (i'm looking at 1.56 million registries in LA county alone that are court ordered to be purged), and/or Trump gets the popular vote in 2020, Colorado's votes then go to Trump, instead of the democrat that they would go to. I for one would absolutely love to see this bill backfire in the dems faces in that scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ulric said:

It might actually work in our benefit for a little bit. Colorado has one of the shittiest voting systems. All voting is done by mail in ballot, and we have same day voter registration, so it's hilariously easy to stuff ballots. But, assuming that this crazy voter fraud gets put down before the next election (i'm looking at 1.56 million registries in LA county alone that are court ordered to be purged), and/or Trump gets the popular vote in 2020, Colorado's votes then go to Trump, instead of the democrat that they would go to. I for one would absolutely love to see this bill backfire in the dems faces in that scenario.

 

Same old same old, Dems, when they can't win within the rules, they change the rules, then everyone laughs when the same rules get used on them when they lose power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Fuck me @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks and you have the gall the accuse the British of having a third world political system.  :rolleyes:

 

Were you triggered by those nasty dems?  Did shouting at the British person make your snowflake soul feel better?  :lol:

 

 

Try keeping your weeping vagina to one thread subject. No one is impressed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ulric said:

Sadly, since the influx of Californians to our state, we have seen an increase in the rate of incest and ether huffing among our elected officials. My state is fucked so hard, and it didn't take but 10 years for it to happen.

 

I guess in a strange way it adds more weight to my vote, because instead of isolating the effect of my vote to the state of Colorado, it now gets counted with the national vote, but that is a really stupid way of doing it. We need to split the Denver/Boulder/Fort Collins region off into their own politically autonomous zones so they stop fucking up the rest of the state. There is much more to Colorado than the front range, just don't tell that to anyone from the front range.

 

The electoral college protects minority interests, and I thought that the left was all about protecting minorities.

 

How does it protect minoroty interests? As far as I can tell, it simply means that the only votes that count are those of the people that live in 14 swing states.  Right now, republicans in California and democrats in Texas essentially have no say in electing the president.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

How does it protect minoroty interests? As far as I can tell, it simply means that the only votes that count are those of the people that live in 14 swing states.  Right now, republicans in California and democrats in Texas essentially have no say in electing the president.  

 

Yes, and without the electoral college, no would would give a shit about anywhere outside of New York, L.A., Chicago, and a handful of other major metropolitan areas. It would further exacerbate the urban/rural divide that is tearing this country apart. The states elect the president, not the people. The people tell their state which candidate to vote for. It protects minority interests in that it means that minor states still have some say in what happens. Personally, I would find it hilarious if each state only got one vote in the electoral college, but that is because I care about the coastal metropolis areas and the opinions of their residents about as much as that pink bacteria that grows in toilets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with this nonsensical - and no doubt Unconstitutional - legislation is that it is symbolic at best and downright dangerous to the Republic and the notion of universal suffrage and state's rights at its worst.

 

Let's look at the past races.

 

2016: Colorado went for Hillary. Hillary got pop vote = No change Trump won anyway.

2012: Colorado went for Obama. Obama got pop vote = No change

2008: Colorado went for Obama. Obama got pop vote = No change

2004: Colorado went for Dubya. Dubya got pop vote = No change

 

2000: Colorado went for Dubya. Algore got pop vote = Algore would have won the Presidency if he carried Colorado despite its citizens voting against him!!!!!!!

 

1996: Colorado went for Bobdole. Bubba got pop vote = Bubba would have won anyway.

1992: Colorado went for Bubba. Bubba got pop vote = No change

 

(skipping a lot of races where it wouldn't matter and focusing on these key races)

 

1960: Colorado went for Tricky Dick. Jack Kennedy got the pop vote = JFK would have won anyway.

 

1944: Colorado went for Thomas Dewey. FDR got the pop vote = FDR won anyway

 

1940: Colorado went for Wendell Wilkie. FDR got the pop vote = FDR won anyway

 

1908: Colorado went for William Jennings Bryant. Howard Taft won pop vote = Taft won anyway

 

1900: Colorado went for William Jennings Bryant. McKinley won the pop vote = He won anyway.

 

1896: Colorado went for William Jennings Bryant. McKinley won the pop vote= He won anyway

 

1892: Colorado went for Populist candidate James B Weaver. Grover Cleveland won the pop vote= He would have won anyway.

 

1888: Colorado went for Benjamin Harrison. Grover Cleveland won the pop vote= Harrison would have won anyway

 

1884: Colorado went for James Blaine. Grover Cleveland won the pop vote = Cleveland would have won anyway.

 

1876: Colorado went for Rutherford B Hayes. Samuel Tilden won the pop vote = Samuel Tilden would have won the Presidency if he carried Colorado despite its citizens voting against him!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And before that, Colorado was a US territory. 

 

So looking at the past 112 years of US presidential elections, this legislation would have TWICE upset the result of a Presidential election, disenfranchising the citizens of Colorado and would have 12 times changed the votes of Colorado's Electors.

 

Edit: Corrections hopefully updated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Donward said:

The issue with this nonsensical - and no doubt Unconstitutional - legislation is that it is symbolic at best and downright dangerous to the Republic and the notion of universal suffrage and state's rights at its worst.

 

Let's look at the past races.

 

2016: Colorado went for Hillary. Hillary got pop vote = No change Trump won anyway.

2012: Colorado went for Obama. Obama got pop vote = No change

2008: Colorado went for Obama. Obama got pop vote = No change

2004: Colorado went for Dubya. Dubya got pop vote = No change

 

2000: Colorado went for Dubya. Algore got pop vote = Algore would have won the Presidency if he carried Colorado despite its citizens voting against him!!!!!!!

 

1996: Colorado went for Bobdole. Bubba got pop vote = Bubba would have won anyway.

1992: Colorado went for Bubba. Bubba got pop vote = No change

 

(skipping a lot of races where it wouldn't matter and focusing on these key races)

 

1960: Colorado went for Tricky Dick. Jack Kennedy got the pop vote = JFK would have won anyway.

 

1944: Colorado went for Thomas Dewey. FDR got the pop vote = FDR won anyway

 

1940: Colorado went for Wendell Wilkie. FDR got the pop vote = FDR won anyway

 

1908: Colorado went for William Jennings Bryant. Howard Taft won pop vote = Taft won anyway

 

1900: Colorado went for William Jennings Bryant. McKinley won the pop vote = He won anyway.

 

1896: Colorado went for William Jennings Bryant. McKinley won the pop vote= He won anyway

 

1892: Colorado went for Populist candidate James B Weaver. Grover Cleveland won the pop vote= He would have won anyway.

 

1888: Colorado went for Benjamin Harrison. Grover Cleveland won the pop vote= Harrison would have won anyway

 

1884: Colorado went for James Blaine. Grover Cleveland won the pop vote = Cleveland would have won anyway.

 

1876: Colorado went for Rutherford B Hayes. Samuel Tilden won the pop vote = Samuel Tilden would have won the Presidency if he carried Colorado despite its citizens voting against him!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And before that, Colorado was a US territory. 

 

So looking at the past 112 years of US presidential elections, this legislation would have TWICE upset the result of a Presidential election, disenfranchising the citizens of Colorado and would have 12 times changed the votes of Colorado's Electors.

 

Edit: Corrections hopefully updated

 

Yeah this whole "movement" is a bizarre ploy for states to disenfranchise their own voters. I am sure it'll go over well lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

How does it protect minoroty interests? As far as I can tell, it simply means that the only votes that count are those of the people that live in 14 swing states.  Right now, republicans in California and democrats in Texas essentially have no say in electing the president.  

It means that the parties have to tailor their policies that also benefit the swing states, which are constantly changing. Without the EC, there is no reason to campaign outside of the heavily populated areas, disenfranchising the states with less people and can further the divide between the less populous and more populous states. With EC, you guarantee minimum representation to the less populous states which makes the Union more stable as less feel disenfranchised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but you see if we'd just abolished the EC on November 7th 2016, Hillary would have won and we'd be in the middle of a nuclear war with Russia right now! Think of the possibilities!

This message brought to you by Raytheon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ulric said:

 

Yes, and without the electoral college, no would would give a shit about anywhere outside of New York, L.A., Chicago, and a handful of other major metropolitan areas. It would further exacerbate the urban/rural divide that is tearing this country apart. The states elect the president, not the people. The people tell their state which candidate to vote for. It protects minority interests in that it means that minor states still have some say in what happens. Personally, I would find it hilarious if each state only got one vote in the electoral college, but that is because I care about the coastal metropolis areas and the opinions of their residents about as much as that pink bacteria that grows in toilets.

 

Fine, just have the states divide up their electors based on the percentage that each candidate gets.  Winner take all is the problem.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Fine, just have the states divide up their electors based on the percentage that each candidate gets.  Winner take all is the problem.  

 

I thought this was how the EC worked anyway... why does it not work this way? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Fine, just have the states divide up their electors based on the percentage that each candidate gets.  Winner take all is the problem.  

 

 

 

How is that functionally different from a national popular vote?

 

Libs hate the EC because it means that bumbkinville flyover country gets to have any say in what happens with the country. The only reason they are pushing against it is because the lost to Trump in a rare event where someone (debatablely) lost popular, but had a better ground game and won the EC. This is short sighted reactionary politics driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome. That is not how you make a lasting system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ulric said:

 

How is that functionally different from a national popular vote?

 

Libs hate the EC because it means that bumbkinville flyover country gets to have any say in what happens with the country. The only reason they are pushing against it is because the lost to Trump in a rare event where someone (debatablely) lost popular, but had a better ground game and won the EC. This is short sighted reactionary politics driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome. That is not how you make a lasting system.

 

I live in Grand Rapids Michigan.  It's about as fly over as you can get.  Stop assuming everyone thinks like you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason the Left hates the Electoral College is because they lost two Presidential elections in the last two decades, running terrible human beings as their candidate.

 

If the roles were reversed and two Republican candidates won the popular vote, and lost the electoral college, this wouldn't be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winner take all is not the problem, the problem is that the major metropolitan areas have as much of a say as they do. These people have contempt for the part of America that grows their food, produces their energy, and mines their resources. The cities don't understand that, and would enact policies that would destroy these industries, and weaken the entire nation because of it. The problem is that based purely on population, the cities out outweigh the rural areas quite heavily, and that needs to be balanced out. That is why we have institutions like the Senate. I love hearing libs talk about how representation in the Senate needs to be proportional to a states population. Such sentiment is born out of an astounding level of arrogance and mental retardation that it's hard not to openly mock and deride them for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In actuality, I can remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth by a certain number of Repubican/conservative intellectuals/media types in 1992 and 1996 about Bubba Clinton winning the election with only a plurality of the vote and not the majority; more people voted for Bush the Elder and H. Ross Perot, and how it wasn't fair because supporters of those two candidates like Bubba the least out of the three major candidates.

 

And all we got from the Democrats and media at the time was "Too bad! Them's the rules!". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Donward said:

In actuality, I can remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth by a certain number of Repubican/conservative intellectuals/media types in 1992 and 1996 about Bubba Clinton winning the election with only a plurality of the vote and not the majority; more people voted for Bush the Elder and H. Ross Perot, and how it wasn't fair because supporters of those two candidates like Bubba the least out of the three major candidates.

 

And all we got from the Democrats and media at the time was "Too bad! Them's the rules!". 

 

 

In 1992, the candidate with the most votes won.  I am pretty sure that is the principal I keep advocating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

In 1992, the candidate with the most votes won.  I am pretty sure that is the principal I keep advocating. 

 

But Bubba did not get the majority of the vote. Far from it in fact. The argument is that more people voted AGAINST Bubba than for. And the conventional wisdom at the time was that Bubba was the LEAST favorite choice of the three candidates.

 

If Ranked choice voting was a thing, therefore, Bubba would have lost (or so the theory went).

 

The main point being, we didn't change the rules THEN to mollycoddle a bunch of losers. I see no reason to change the accepted rules NOW just to placate a bunch of losers who actually voted for a creature like Clinton. Particularly when Hillary has a WORSE approval rating than the President now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I live in Grand Rapids Michigan.  It's about as fly over as you can get.  Stop assuming everyone thinks like you.  

 

Oh, I know that hardly anyone thinks the way I do. 

 

I regularly drove to Scott's Bluff, Sydney, Ogallala, North Platte, Sterling, Pine Bluffs, Saratoga, Laramie, Wellington, Platteville, Eaton, Spearfish, Belle Fourche, Sundance, Newcastle, Langdon, Walden, Walsenberg, etc. The front range used to be flyover country before all these goddamn Californians started infesting the place. Tell me more about flyover country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

 

I thought this was how the EC worked anyway... why does it not work this way? 

Most states give all their electors to which ever party wins that particular state, no matter how thin the margin.  So a party that wins a particular state by 51% gets all that states electors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Donward said:

 

But Bubba did not get the majority of the vote. Far from it in fact. The argument is that more people voted AGAINST Bubba than for. And the conventional wisdom at the time was that Bubba was the LEAST favorite choice of the three candidates.

 

If Ranked choice voting was a thing, therefore, Bubba would have lost (or so the theory went).

 

The main point being, we didn't change the rules THEN to mollycoddle a bunch of losers. I see no reason to change the accepted rules NOW just to placate a bunch of losers who actually voted for a creature like Clinton. Particularly when Hillary has a WORSE approval rating than the President now.

 

And most Nader voters in 2000 would have prefered Gore to Bush.  But they voted for Nader.  You get one vote, there is no runner up system.  Perhaps you would like to redo the election of 1860 as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

And most Nader voters in 2000 would have prefered Gore to Bush.  But they voted for Nader.  You get one vote, there is no runner up system.  Perhaps you would like to redo the election of 1860 as well?

 

????

 

No. The point is I'm NOT wanting to overthrow the Constitution because my candidate lost. 

 

Wanting to trashcan the Electoral College because a creature like Hillary Clinton lost is just as ridiculous as doing the same because Bush the Elder lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Donward said:

 

????

 

No. The point is I'm NOT wanting to overthrow the Constitution because my candidate lost. 

 

Wanting to trashcan the Electoral College because a creature like Hillary Clinton lost is just as ridiculous as doing the same because Bush the Elder lost.

 

your arguement seems to be that since we have put up with a stupid system for over 200 years, we must never ever change it.  Also, the moment Republicans get screwed by the EC, you will hear a howl that will pierce the heavens.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect
      After seeing the rampant crack down on speech in the UK, I decided that more should be done than just Thoughts and Prayers. 
       
      I know that it's a scary time for our UK members. Knowing that what you say on the internet can put you on the wrong side of a Bobby's nightstick, well, I find that despicable. 
       
      So I've created this place for all your impure or degenerate thoughts. Here's how it works. 
       
      Perhaps you want to say something "offensive". Instead of saying it yourself, you can message any US member of this forum and have them act as your avatar of avarice. 
       
      For example, say you had a particularly heinous fish and chips at the local pub. You may want to say, "Oi, that cheeky fucker Barnaby William can't do a proper chip if he had a fryer for hands!"
       
      This on it's own could send you straight to jail for defamation. Moreso, if instead of chips that sent you reeling it happened to be a kebab from Omar down the street. 
       
      Now your crime has gone from offensive to racially insensitive!
       
      Anytime such an urge comes along, call on your ex colonial friends. We will translate and post your complaint for all the world to revel in, free of charge!
       
      I personally think Omar should learn to pull the fucking kebab off heat before it's crisper than his wife's crotch and blacker than his beard. That tosser!
       
      See? Don't you feel better? And now, no one will be knocking on your door, serving you with a summons for being a racist git. 
       
    • By T___A
      Might as well make a new thread now that the election is over.
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
×