• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Popular vote should be worth the state of Florida

Is my idea an improvement to the existing state of affairs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • No

    Votes: 9 90.0%

  • Total voters
    10

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That's absurd.
Let's say a typical politician runs for office to do what he (or she) believes is right.
If you say he has no "mandate", this doesn't mean he's morally required to no
longer pursue what he believes is right. He either succeeds or he doesn't.
A bunch'o crestfallen tantrum throwing losers won't stand in his way.
The concept of a mandate is pretty common in Canadian politics; isn't it in the US?

The idea is that an elected representative is supposed to represent the interests of the whole people, not just the people who voted for him, and the popular vote (along with voter turnout, etc.) is an indication of how much the people's interests are served by his platform.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I'm sure we'll give Comrade Trump the same respect you guys gave Obama.

But that doesn't change the fact that he got fewer popular votes than Clinton. Why are y'all so afraid of the popular vote?
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
The concept of a mandate is pretty common in Canadian politics; isn't it in the US?
It's not. A mandate is only an emotional thing here. Every candidate wants to think that their win somehow gives him a mandate. Look at how Comrade Trump proclaims that his was the biggest win ever, when it's like second or third from the lowest. The win was a fluke. Trump won the electoral contest with the largest popular vote loss. There's a disconnect right there.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The concept of a mandate is pretty common in Canadian politics; isn't it in the US?
We hear about it all the time.
But it's just a way to try claim more legitimacy for one's own side, & to deny it to the other.
It's not real.
The idea is that an elected representative is supposed to represent the interests of the whole people, not just the people who voted for him, and the popular vote (along with voter turnout, etc.) is an indication of how much the people's interests are served by his platform.
A lot of us voted against Obama, & he still foisted the ACA upon us.
This is just how things work.
Politicians do things that many of us like & many of us dislike.
"The people's interests" are not unanimously agreed upon.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
15390920_10103456970734901_7848354925938697491_n.jpg
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
A possible problem with urban voters....
They tend to be more of the hive mentality.
This points out the advantage of a system which is based upon being a republic.

Actually, the electoral college allows for the hive mentality to work it's magic, which is why in NY, 16 out of 62 counties voted for Hillary, but because they were urban and well populated, all 29 electoral votes went to Hillary.

What about Trump voters in NY?
What about Hillary voters in TX?

A popular vote would give them all a voice. And since we wouldn't be putting states against each other, any state could be a swing state.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Actually, the electoral college allows for the hive mentality to work it's magic, which is why in NY, 16 out of 62 counties voted for Hillary, but because they were urban and we'll populated, all 29 electoral votes went to Hillary.

What about Trump voters in NY?
What about Hillary voters in TX?

A popular vote would give them all a voice. And since we wouldn't be putting states against each other, any state could be a swing state.
If we switched to a popular vote, I'd be OK with that.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
A possible problem with urban voters....
They tend to be more of the hive mentality.
Why do you think that?
Did Julian Assange say so?
In my experience, urbanites are hugely diverse. Far more so than the white ruralites who want to keep their Affirmative Action (called the Electoral College)
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Why do you think that?
I've lived in cities (LA, Baltimore) & in the boonies (East Jezus, West Jezus).
City folk are much more concerned with what their neighbors are up to.
And they report each other to the authorities for things like no building permits, noise, grass length, etc.
So I like living near cities (& not too big), but not in them.
Did Julian Assange say so?
Not that I know of.
Is that the kind of thing he might say?
In my experience, urbanites are hugely diverse.
I've seen the same.
Far more so than the white ruralites who want to keep their Affirmative Action (called the Electoral College)
Tom
But we have more Amerindians, more political diversity, & more professional diversity.
The electoral college is our constitutional protection, albeit a slight one, against your lust for tyranny over us.
 
Top