Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[Monk Of Reason]

Don't quite understand what you are attempting to put forth. So I can't have an answer

You seem, unless I am mistaken, to believe that it is more fair to have the electroal college sytem than a direct vote for president because it inflates the voting power of rural America? Yes?

I am asking that if the situation was reversed and we were attempting to use the EC to inflate the value of votes in big cities or states with big cities than those in rural America? Or if the values were reversed as well. A second proposal. What if the rural area was liberal democrats and the urban areas were republican conservatives? would you still support the inflation of liberal urban American votes?

 

[suncowiam]

What has he said about LGBT?

It's not just what he has said. It's very much what he has supported and done. You're drawing this far too out. It's such an easy Google search.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence#LGBT_rights_policy

I'm not continuing this fox chase. Feel free to believe what you like if that doesn't convince you.

 

[suncowiam]

Jill Stein wants a recount here.
Hillary now wants one too....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...gn-will-participate-in-stein-s-state-recounts
And our EC voters are being threatened if they vote for Trump....
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/17/elector-threats/94003176/
It's so odd that Dems believe that only Pubs traffic in hate & violence.

Well, the recount is part of the entire process if a candidate wanted to proceed and has the funds to do so.

If the recount doesn't succeed, then so be it. I think it's much more civilized and "fair" than protesting and rioting.

As far as the EC voters being threatened, yeah, I would agree with you on that.

 

[idav]

It's so odd that Dems believe that only Pubs traffic in hate & violence.

I haven't really seen this mentality. The only thing I have seen is condemnation of Hillary while ignoring more note worthy remarks straight from Trump himself.

 

[Revoltingest]

I haven't really seen this mentality.

As a Trump voter, perhaps I'm just more sensitive to it.

The only thing I have seen is condemnation of Hillary while ignoring more note worthy remarks straight from Trump himself.

As a Hillary voter (I presume), perhaps you're less sensitive to her abusive supporters, eh?

 

[idav]

As a Hillary voter (I presume), perhaps you're less sensitive to her abusive supporters, eh?

I find violence over elections appalling regardless where it's coming from. I'd rather share a drink over civil discourse rather than throw punches. Liberals enacting violence really goes against the platform but then again they are liberals lol.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find violence over elections appalling regardless where it's coming from. I'd rather share a drink over civil discourse rather than throw punches. Liberals enacting violence really goes against the platform but then again they are liberals lol.

Agreed that all violence, threats, abuse, dishonesty & extended warranties are bad.

OK, some extended warranties are good, eg, sophisticated copiers, Iphones.

 

[idav]

Agreed that all violence, threats, abuse, dishonesty & extended warranties are bad.

Well I'm sure you mean it I wish I was more sure our president elect was sincere in not condoning violence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I'm sure you mean it I wish I was more sure our president elect was sincere in not condoning violence.

I cannot speak to his sincerity.

 

[idav]

I cannot speak to his sincerity.

Well you got me there I can't really see through his contradictory statements.

 

[Prestor John]

You're drawing this far too out. It's such an easy Google search.

It is customary when claiming that someone said or did something that you share your source.

If you want to make an argument, nut up and provide your sources.

I'm not in the business of just believing what anyone says about another person.

I'm not continuing this fox chase. Feel free to believe what you like if that doesn't convince you.

Thank you for the source.

I agree with some of the things he has said and done, but not all.

I don't think he is a bigot for saying and doing the things he has done though.

 

[suncowiam]

It is customary when claiming that someone said or did something that you share your source.

If you want to make an argument, nut up and provide your sources.

I'm not in the business of just believing what anyone says about another person.

Thank you for the source.

I agree with some of the things he has said and done, but not all.

I don't think he is a bigot for saying and doing the things he has done though.

Fair enough, but there's plenty of source on Pence's history. Like I said, it's just search away. Some folks just like to obfuscate the matter and sorry if I assumed you were doing such. I appreciate the straight forward response.

It seems hypicritical to me that he condemns something that still has very little real world data concerning how the lbgt lifestyle will affect society. Yet, he backs tobacco knowing full well it's damage to the population of users and even non-users. If he wants to argue choice then it's hypocritical to not apply choice to all his ideals. The fact that he has accepted money from big tobacco is another troubling sign.

 

[Prestor John]

Fair enough, but there's plenty of source on Pence's history. Like I said, it's just search away. Some folks just like to obfuscate the matter and sorry if I assumed you were doing such. I appreciate the straight forward response.

I'm sorry. The main reason why I don't want to look myself is that I don't know what exact quote you are referring to and I don't want to read something else and comment as if I know what I'm talking about when I don't.

It seems hypicritical to me that he condemns something that still has very little real world data concerning how the lbgt lifestyle will affect society.

Well, if he believes in what the Bible claims then that's what he believes and I feel that he is free to act on that conviction, even in the public ring.

I am very religious as well, but would I go that far if I was elected into an office? Probably not. I understand and appreciate the ability to "wear different hats". So, even though I may personally disagree with LBGT, I don't believe that I should act on that conviction in conjunction with my elected duties.

I'd be elected to serve ALL the people, not just those I agree with.

Yet, he backs tobacco knowing full well it's damage to the population of users and even non-users.

From what I read, he did not so much "back" tobacco as he "backed" the people's right to smoke if they wanted. He also expressed his fear of a more powerful government having control over what we can buy and consume.

I think that is a genuine fear. I mean, there are lots of movies based o that kind of government, aren't there?

If he wants to argue choice then it's hypocritical to not apply choice to all his ideals.

I don't understand this. He did choose his ideals.

The fact that he has accepted money from big tobacco is another troubling sign.

Why not accept money from tobacco companies? He could probably put it to good use. Better use. At least that money ain't going to make more cancer sticks.

 

[esmith]

You seem, unless I am mistaken, to believe that it is more fair to have the electroal college sytem than a direct vote for president because it inflates the voting power of rural America? Yes?

I am asking that if the situation was reversed and we were attempting to use the EC to inflate the value of votes in big cities or states with big cities than those in rural America? Or if the values were reversed as well. A second proposal. What if the rural area was liberal democrats and the urban areas were republican conservatives? would you still support the inflation of liberal urban American votes?

All I can say is look at a map depicting how counties in all States voted and you will understand what I am failing to get across to most of those on this site.

 

[idav]

All I can say is look at a map depicting how counties in all States voted and you will understand what I am failing to get across to most of those on this site.

Let's look at one state Florida for example. I see all the red counties and realize that blue still only got barely under half the state. Thing is your talking entire populations. Do you think it would be better for that state to be red regardless of popular vote if in the off chance dems managed to get an extra couple percentages? States already get there representatives based on popular vote. We are talking about millions of votes, should we just give it to the rural counties?

 

[Koldo]

No, the candidates would concentrate on those states that have the highest population base that would give them a majority. Elections rules are always bad if you lose and good if you win; therefore there is totally "fair" answer.

Currently though, they can completely ignore some of the states with the highest population simply because they see no chance to win the majority there. As it is, only swing states matter, how is this any better ?

 

[esmith]

Let's look at one state Florida for example. I see all the red counties and realize that blue still only got barely under half the state. Thing is your talking entire populations. Do you think it would be better for that state to be red regardless of popular vote if in the off chance dems managed to get an extra couple percentages? States already get there representatives based on popular vote. We are talking about millions of votes, should we just give it to the rural counties?

yep

 

[idav]

yep

So goes back to why you think only rural votes matter just cause they live in more land. 2 million votes is the same amount of people whether they are dispersed should make little difference.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm sorry. The main reason why I don't want to look myself is that I don't know what exact quote you are referring to and I don't want to read something else and comment as if I know what I'm talking about when I don't.

Well, if he believes in what the Bible claims then that's what he believes and I feel that he is free to act on that conviction, even in the public ring.

I am very religious as well, but would I go that far if I was elected into an office? Probably not. I understand and appreciate the ability to "wear different hats". So, even though I may personally disagree with LBGT, I don't believe that I should act on that conviction in conjunction with my elected duties.

I'd be elected to serve ALL the people, not just those I agree with.

From what I read, he did not so much "back" tobacco as he "backed" the people's right to smoke if they wanted. He also expressed his fear of a more powerful government having control over what we can buy and consume.

I think that is a genuine fear. I mean, there are lots of movies based o that kind of government, aren't there?

I don't understand this. He did choose his ideals.

Why not accept money from tobacco companies? He could probably put it to good use. Better use. At least that money ain't going to make more cancer sticks.

As social and community leaders, I expect them to base their opinions on facts. They are the first to build and steer our societies. I appreciate what you would do as a leader but that stops very short from what Mike Pence would do.

As a politician, his words and actions can be considered to be supportive of tobacco.

If I take money from organizations, it can be considered that I work for them. It's just technicality what I choose to call it. It's considered a conflict of interest. This is not new. It's an important basis in determining which candidates are not influenced by big corporations.

 

[Prestor John]

As social and community leaders, I expect them to base their opinions on facts. They are the first to build and steer our societies. I appreciate what you would do as a leader but that stops very short from what Mike Pence would do.

As a politician, his words and actions can be considered to be supportive of tobacco.

If I take money from organizations, it can be considered that I work for them. It's just technicality what I choose to call it. It's considered a conflict of interest. This is not new. It's an important basis in determining which candidates are not influenced by big corporations.

But Pence claimed that smoking was unhealthy and bad and that those who smoke should quit.

I just find your view to be overly critical.