NLL commissioner seems like kind of a jerk

Discussion in 'NLL News and Rumors' started by TofuBomb, Oct 6, 2018.

  1. MILLwasbetter

    MILLwasbetter Well-Known Member

    It actually makes perfect sense. Has made sense for over 200 years.
    Please explain to me, how a system that was put in place 214 years ago to ensure that every state and every person in the country had a say in the outcome of an election, instead of a few people in big cities, is anti- democratic. Because as of right now your answer is immature and has nothing to stand on.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    Andrew GEA likes this.
  2. TofuBomb

    TofuBomb Guest

    EDIT: If you can't understand why someone getting more votes (i.e. winning the popular vote) but losing an election is anti-democratic, I'm not sure I can explain it to you. So I'll leave it here.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  3. AmericanRockFan

    AmericanRockFan Well-Known Member

    I made out with a girl I met on Tinder on Friday night in case anyone cares.
    MILLwasbetter, 9SQUIRE3 and IAmDroot like this.
  4. Hollywood42

    Hollywood42 Well-Known Member

    If you only made out with some tinder jawn
    You’re doing it wrong
  5. AmericanRockFan

    AmericanRockFan Well-Known Member

    This is a PG message board, so I kept it PG :)
  6. swami24

    swami24 Well-Known Member

    The funny thing is, it wouldnt have been an issue for dems or the media, if it had gone the other way.
    MILLwasbetter likes this.
  7. Hollywood42

    Hollywood42 Well-Known Member

    Devil’s Triangle with some boofing
  8. AmericanRockFan

    AmericanRockFan Well-Known Member

    Everyone is biased for something.
  9. Vin

    Vin Well-Known Member

    I am offended by that! I think you are biased making such an assertion!
  10. Torbald2895

    Torbald2895 Member

    There are 1 million people in Idaho. Idaho has 4 electoral votes. There are 20 million people in New York. New York has 29 electoral votes. New York has 20 times the people, and 7 times the vote, of Idaho. Why should the vote of someone in Idaho count 3 times as much as one from New York?
    Wings-4-Life, RockStar and IAmDroot like this.
  11. RockStar

    RockStar Well-Known Member

    The electoral college is an example of something that was a sorta good idea to balance the will of the voters by population, and by geography, but, that needs a fair bit of tinkering to make it serve its original purpose in an equitable way.

    I feel the way the majority of states are set up with "winner take all" really screws things up

    50.5% of the popular vote should probably not give 100% of the electoral vote.....It leads to red states always red, blue states always blue.

    And what I see from this is that, after the primaries, the Presidential nominees really only need to campaign vigorously to two groups of people:

    1. the ~10% of swing state resident voters who are undecided as of the start of the campaign,
    2. the ~40% of decided swing state voters on their side of the spectrum, to make sure they are angry or scared enough to show up in bigger numbers than the other arsehole's voters.

    If you consider that, surprisingly few people's presidential votes actually "matter".

    I believe the congressional districts are a lot closer to being 'equal' in terms of number of voters per district.....could anyone imagine a situation where there was an elector in each of those, and, majority (or plurality) vote in that district sends that guy's elector to Washington??

    There is also the inequity in the number of electoral votes assigned to certain states vs other states. They really should revisit the formula and square that up a little bit.
    IAmDroot likes this.
  12. TofuBomb

    TofuBomb Guest

    For what it's worth, I think the Senate should be abolished too. The idea that California has the same number of senators as North Dakota is insane.
  13. AmericanRockFan

    AmericanRockFan Well-Known Member

    I’m not into FMM threesomes......
  14. Vin

    Vin Well-Known Member

    I don't have time to discuss it fully, but the entire way the American federal government is organized makes complete sense when reverse-engineered and looked at through the eyes of someone who lived in America 230 years ago.

    That said, what SHOULD happen isn't so much the removal of the Senate or the Electoral College, but follow the original Constitutional definition in Article I Section 2 Clause 3 that there should be one member of the House of Representatives per at most 30,000 persons.

    "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;..."

    Unfortunately, that would mean a current Congress with thousands representatives, so a law (The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929) was passed which ultimately has lead the House to be capped at 435 members.
    That law should be challenged as unconstitutional.

    Nonetheless, returning to the original Article I stipulation restores the balance that was originally in place.

    The net effect is that the Electoral College will once-again more closely align with the popular vote because, with the vast increase in the number of representatives, the number of Senators will have less impact on the Electoral College.
    MILLwasbetter likes this.
  15. Vin

    Vin Well-Known Member

    That will never happen. In fact, it is impossible that it can happen because the Constitution explicitly states that the one thing that is NOT subject to the Constitutional amendment process is that each state gets an equal number of Senators.
    MILLwasbetter likes this.
  16. swami24

    swami24 Well-Known Member

    That is all part of the checks and balances. Every state is being accorded value, so that 3 to 6 states do not run the country.

    The reason for the electoral college, it.recognizes and balances the value of each state..

    The forefathers didnt want New York running everything and that still is a good decision.
    MILLwasbetter likes this.
  17. Vin

    Vin Well-Known Member

    1. It wouldn't have been New York, but PA and VA.
    2. The Forefather's recognized the value of New York. You can thank them for that by taking advantage of your Bill of Rights.
    3. What none of them wanted was any state being dominant. That's why the New Jersey Plan ultimately gave us the Senate and not the Virginia Plan which gave us the House.
  18. liveone

    liveone Active Member

    It sounds like some folks around here have been drinking a bit too much of the Social Media Poli-Sci Kool-Aid.
    MILLwasbetter and wacklax like this.
  19. Andrew GEA

    Andrew GEA Guest

    Because Idaho is a producer, no one in NYC farms. The farmers in NY State cannot provide for everyone in NY State. Idaho runs a surplus and can provide food and other resources to the entire us and sell them off internationally.

    This source of income / goods is far more important then the types of income / goods produced in a big city (because you'll die of starvation).

    Like other people had mentioned big cities vote left because left issues and policy leans toward city issues and social services. It is not uncommon for those leftist policies to directly hurt the rural producers.

    The u.s forefathers knew this and created a system that was equal between cities and rural ( based off of geography not population), so that is why Idaho has more voting power than NYC.

    In short if you cripple a nation's production it will be the beginning of the end ( terrible economics). Popular voting systems only really work for small nation's with little rural output.
    MILLwasbetter likes this.
  20. TofuBomb

    TofuBomb Guest

    If Republicans won the popular vote but lost the presidency TWICE in the past 20 years, they would have burned the country to the ground. I don't take any of these crazy rationalizations seriously.

Share This Page