Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[Monk Of Reason]

The President of the United States is elected by the nation, not just those in urban areas.

This allows the intellectual diversity of the nation to be heard.

Is there more nation in each individual of the midwest than in urban areas? Why do anything by population proportion at all then? Why not give each state a single vote. And each county a single vote. Then you go vote for your county. Your county gets one vote determiend by the majority of people. Then the state votes by number of county votes (one a piece of course) and then each state only gets one vote? Why not?

There is no reason for any one person's vote to mean more than anothers. I"ll guratee I have the strongest vote or tied for it out of everyone in the forum. Why? Because I live in the strongest swing state Florida. I don't agree that my vote should count this much.

Another argument point. Why not give each race different voting power so they are equal. Since african americans make up about 12 percent of our population and whites make up about 60 why don't we inflate african american votes to 5 times the worth of a white vote? Native American votes by a factor of 90? To quote you "This allows the intellectual diversity of the nation to be heard." Do you appose this? If so why? And why is opposition to this different than my opposition to any other unequal worth of other votes?

 

[Prestor John]

Such as their voter ID laws, which included not just a requirement of ID to vote, but so many added provisions that made it harder for mostly Democrat-voting demographs to get an ID if they didn't have one, reducing voting hours and days, stupid stipulations such as allowing a CCW but not a student ID, and other things that made it clear the intention wasn't so much a requirement for ID as it was balk Democrat voters from voting.

Making sure that only those who are allowed to vote are voting is not a "stupid stipulation".

Why don't Democrats have IDs?

You claim that enforcing the predetermined opening and closing of polls is "reducing voting hours"?

CCW require two forms of ID and background checks, while schools do not.

The intention was to keep voting fair and free of corruption.

 

[suncowiam]

Would you mind sharing a source for that quote?

You can type "Mike Pence Tobacco" in Google, and you'll find a ton of links.

Here's one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-said-smoking-doesnt-kill_us_58121434e4b064e1b4b0bf93

 

[Prestor John]

Is there more nation in each individual of the midwest than in urban areas? Why do anything by population proportion at all then? Why not give each state a single vote. And each county a single vote. Then you go vote for your county. Your county gets one vote determiend by the majority of people. Then the state votes by number of county votes (one a piece of course) and then each state only gets one vote? Why not?

There is no reason for any one person's vote to mean more than anothers. I"ll guratee I have the strongest vote or tied for it out of everyone in the forum. Why? Because I live in the strongest swing state Florida. I don't agree that my vote should count this much.

Another argument point. Why not give each race different voting power so they are equal. Since african americans make up about 12 percent of our population and whites make up about 60 why don't we inflate african american votes to 5 times the worth of a white vote? Native American votes by a factor of 90? To quote you "This allows the intellectual diversity of the nation to be heard." Do you appose this? If so why? And why is opposition to this different than my opposition to any other unequal worth of other votes?

You would not equate racial diversity with intellectual diversity.

Thinking those are the same is racist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just a single source for each quote would help me out.

I just want to read the exact same quotes you have read.

http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/

He said gay couples signaled ‘societal collapse’
He opposed a law that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT people in the workplace
He opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
He rejected the Obama administration directive on transgender bathrooms

http://www.indystar.com/story/opini...07/14/tully-dear-america-mike-pence/87093704/

I could tell you about the discriminatory religious freedom bill he signed in 2015, the one that recklessly damaged his state. But that was such a fiasco that you may have all heard all about it. Or you may have seen the disastrous interview Pence did in the middle of that controversy with George Stephanopoulos, the one where he struggled to answer the most basic question imaginable: Is it OK to discriminate in Indiana?

Sorry for the size of this one, but it's just how deeply pissed off people were at Pence.
http://www.indystar.com/story/opini...pence-fix-religious-freedom-law-now/70698802/

Our image. Our reputation as a state that embraces people of diverse backgrounds and makes them feel welcome. And our efforts over many years to retool our economy, to attract talented workers and thriving businesses, and to improve the quality of life for millions of Hoosiers.

All of this is at risk because of a new law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that no matter its original intent already has done enormous harm to our state and potentially our economic future.

The consequences will only get worse if our state leaders delay in fixing the deep mess created.

And I can say, it's nerve wracking when those "representing" you are gunning for your rights.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You would not equate racial diversity with intellectual diversity.

Thinking those are the same is racist.

I would not equate demographic diversity with intellectual diversity. You also ignored the rest of the post whcih I would like for you to answer. Especially the first paragraph. Also respond to litterally anything I said. You just said "nah thats racist". The point is that arbitrary demographics should not determine the worth of a vote. What is the logic behind your argument for rural americans having more value than ubran americans. Aside from simply saying "thats racist" which I agree and don't actually feel we should do, what is the logical differences between the two arbitrary demographics.?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Calls to action (such as violence) are not considered "speech".

Calls to action are considered speech. However, speech that explicitly calls for violence should not be protected, and in many instances is not.

Anyone and everyone's ideology should have a voice and should have a direct impact legislation.

Should Jihadist sleeper cells have a voice and direct legislation? Should those who want to teach religious mythos as science fact have such an impact? Should those who want to totally ban religion be considered?

You cannot pick and choose whose rights you want to protect. You are either for all or for none.

That is an impossible position to hold.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Making sure that only those who are allowed to vote are voting is not a "stupid stipulation".

I didn't say the ID requirement was stupid, I said everything that came along with those bills is stupid.

 

[Prestor John]

You can type "Mike Pence Tobacco" in Google, and you'll find a ton of links.

Here's one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-said-smoking-doesnt-kill_us_58121434e4b064e1b4b0bf93

Thank you for the source.

I do not consider the Huffington Post quoting from Buzz Feed to be very reliable.

The Huffington Post and Buzz Feed only focused on two sentences of Pence's "The Great American Smoke Out".

They did not quote Pence when he said,

"This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit."

Pence is merely against the idea that the Federal Government should have the power to "protect us from ourselves". If someone wants to smoke, and thus lessen their lifespan, they should be free to do so. Just as anyone should be able to eat fast food, sky dive, ski, have consensual unprotected sex or go deep sea diving - which could also pose fatal health risks.

Pence said in closing,

"Even a conservative like me would support government big enough to protect us from foreign threats and threats to our domestic tranquility but the tobacco deal goes to the next level. Government big enough to protect us from our own stubborn wills. And a government of such plenary power, once conceived will hardly stop at tobacco. Surely the scourge of fatty foods and their attendant cost to the health care economy bears some consideration. How about the role of caffeine in fomenting greater stress in the lives of working Americans? Don't get me started about the dangers of sports utility vehicles!
Those of you who find the tobacco deal acceptable should be warned as you sit, reading this magazine, sipping a cup of hot coffee with a hamburger on your mind for lunch. A government big enough to go after smokers is big enough to go after you."

http://web.archive.org/web/20010415085348/http://mikepence.com/smoke.html

 

[esmith]

So they go from focusing on a few states like Ohio and Florida to focusing on a few cities like New York and Seattle. How is that really that big of a difference? And why would this be a bad thing?

Because I and a majority of the country do not care for the political ideology of people living in New York and Settle and other mega metropolitan areas
The Democrats have had their butt handed to them since 2008 and they still don't get it.
Since the Obama took office Democrats have lost
14 Senate Seats
69 House Seats
12 governorship's
910 state legislative seats
and that is not counting the 2016 elections where the Democrats took it in the shorts in State elections
The liberal/progressive mindset of the country has been rejected
Try this

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because I and a majority of the country do not care for the political ideology of people living in New York and Settle and other mega metropolitan mindset

If the majority of the country disagrees then why would it be an issue if we had a direct vote? Why suddenly care about the majority when you believe the are not in urban areas?

edit. And further as a thought exercise if the situations were reversed would you support dissproportinally inflating the votes of Urban areas to usurp the majority of rural area voters?

 

[fantome profane]

Thank you for the source.

I do not consider the Huffington Post quoting from Buzz Feed to be very reliable.

The Huffington Post and Buzz Feed only focused on two sentences of Pence's "The Great American Smoke Out".

They did not quote Pence when he said,

"This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit."

Pence is merely against the idea that the Federal Government should have the power to "protect us from ourselves". If someone wants to smoke, and thus lessen their lifespan, they should be free to do so. Just as anyone should be able to eat fast food, sky dive, ski, have consensual unprotected sex or go deep sea diving - which could also pose fatal health risks.

Pence said in closing,

"Even a conservative like me would support government big enough to protect us from foreign threats and threats to our domestic tranquility but the tobacco deal goes to the next level. Government big enough to protect us from our own stubborn wills. And a government of such plenary power, once conceived will hardly stop at tobacco. Surely the scourge of fatty foods and their attendant cost to the health care economy bears some consideration. How about the role of caffeine in fomenting greater stress in the lives of working Americans? Don't get me started about the dangers of sports utility vehicles!
Those of you who find the tobacco deal acceptable should be warned as you sit, reading this magazine, sipping a cup of hot coffee with a hamburger on your mind for lunch. A government big enough to go after smokers is big enough to go after you."

http://web.archive.org/web/20010415085348/http://mikepence.com/smoke.html

And do you think he is right? If I invent a new flavour of ice cream that contains traces of cyanide and arsenic and other toxins should I be allowed to sell it? Should I be able to sell it to children? And if I give huge sums of money to elected officials to get them to support my cyanide ice cream is that ok?

 

[esmith]

If the majority of the country disagrees then why would it be an issue if we had a direct vote? Why suddenly care about the majority when you believe the are not in urban areas?

edit. And further as a thought exercise if the situations were reversed would you support dissproportinally inflating the votes of Urban areas to usurp the majority of rural area voters?

I should have qualified "majority" as the majority of the country living in non-urban areas.

 

[Prestor John]

Calls to action are considered speech. However, speech that explicitly calls for violence should not be protected, and in many instances is not.

Should Jihadist sleeper cells have a voice and direct legislation? Should those who want to teach religious mythos as science fact have such an impact? Should those who want to totally ban religion be considered?

That is an impossible position to hold.

If they are all American citizens and are not calling for violence - they should have a voice and should be able to impact legislation just as anyone else. They can vote their representatives into office or run themselves for office.

How is defending everyone's right to free speech an "impossible position"?

 

[Prestor John]

And do you think he is right? If I invent a new flavour of ice cream that contains traces of cyanide and arsenic and other toxins should I be allowed to sell it?

I don't consider this to be a valid comparison.

Are you telling me that that the Federal Government could deny me my right to buy rat poison because they think I might consume it?

I don't like smoking at all. I think it is vile and pollutes he air, but I still believe people should be able to smoke if they want to.

I also think profanity is vile and is noise pollution - Can the Federal Government force people not to swear?

 

[fantome profane]

I don't consider this to be a valid comparison.

Are you telling me that that the Federal Government could deny me my right to buy rat poison because they think I might consume it?

I don't like smoking at all. I think it is vile and pollutes he air, but I still believe people should be able to smoke if they want to.

I also think profanity is vile and is noise pollution - Can the Federal Government force people not to swear?

If you put rat poison into a chocolate bar and advertise it as something to be eaten, then yes, I think the Federal Government should deny you that right.

And no one has ever died from swearing. In fact there have been scientific studies that show that swearing might even be good for you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I should have qualified "majority" as the majority of the country living in non-urban areas.

So, why should rural areas be given more consideration over metropolitan areas?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If they are all American citizens and are not calling for violence - they should have a voice and should be able to impact legislation just as anyone else.

That's what I've been saying, but you try to disagree with it.

How is defending everyone's right to free speech an "impossible position"?

There are too many contradiction positions and claims to defend all the rights.

 

[fantome profane]

So, why should rural areas be given more consideration over metropolitan areas?

Because city people are all disgusting bums, prostitutes or lawyers. But country folk are all good wholesome real Americans.

 

[Revoltingest]

That was obviously just one example, and an example of a minority group that doesn't deserve promotion.

Is your point that minorities don't deserve representation because some are in the Klan?