"The Rural Minority are a Core Threat"

[Hawkmoon]

She is citing claims that 70% of the population will only have 30% of weight in the electoral college in 2040.

Which was the exact reason for the institution of the electoral college, to avoid the "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner" syndrome.

[DittoHead]

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner"

Instead we have what? Two sheep and wolf voting on what's for dinner but the wolf's vote counts 2.5x
Why should a persons vote be weighted by where they live? You guys talk about cities with the same disdain that democrats talk about rural areas, possibly more.

She is citing claims that 70% of the population will only have 30% of weight in the electoral college in 2040.

I doubt this is true, but let's pretend it is. That's really acceptable to you? If a presidential candidate got 75% of the (real) popular vote, in order to say they should win you'd have to ask where that 75% lived? At what point does such an unbalance become untenable?

[French G.]

We're electing a president of several states forming a republic. The college is designed to balance the weight of the states.

[Ben]

We're electing a president of several states forming a republic. The college is designed to balance the weight of the states.

In fact in a Confederated Republic, instead of arguing, "One Wyoming voter equals 3.6 California voters", one could argue, "one state, one vote".

[K Frame]

"I doubt this is true, but let's pretend it is. That's really acceptable to you? If a presidential candidate got 75% of the (real) popular vote, in order to say they should win you'd have to ask where that 75% lived? At what point does such an unbalance become untenable?"

Yes.

No one is forcing the complaining liberals to cluster in a few states, and a few cities. They're diluting their own power, and creating their own imbalance.

As has been noted, the system we have in place was established to prevent a few states from dominating every aspect of electoral life. It's part of the American system of checks and balances.

[DittoHead]

We're electing a president of several states forming a republic. The college is designed to balance the weight of the states.

I don't disagree that it's what we have, I'm just not seeing why it's the best way to do it. When electing a president, why are states the level it should be "balanced" at? A simple popular vote gives every person the same weight, regardless of where they live - I still don't see how that needs any balancing. Why give power to the states when you can give power directly to the individual?

[Ben]

No one is forcing the complaining liberals to cluster in a few states, and a few cities. They're diluting their own power, and creating their own imbalance.

I encourage like-minded individuals to cluster in like-minded states. That's one of the neat thing about confederation and states rights. And if, for example, a conservative wants to live in CA to make $200K/yr and suck it up being a minority there, that's their choice. Even if they live in a conservative city/county, the state social/political scene rules. Just like for progressives who live in Austin.

If they later choose to make $75K/yr and move to Utah to be near like-minded people, they get to do that. However if CA, by means of population, suddenly becomes strong enough to tell people in Utah how to live, that's uncool, man.

[K Frame]

I encourage like-minded individuals to cluster in like-minded states. That's one of the neat thing about states rights. And if, for example, a conservative wants to live in CA to make $200K/yr and suck it up being a minority there, that's their choice. Even if they live in a conservative city/county, the state social/political scene rules. Just like for progressives who live in Austin.

If they later choose to make $75K/yr and move to Utah to be near like-minded people, they get to do that. However if CA, by means of population, suddenly becomes strong enough to tell people in Utah how to live, that's uncool, man.

Friend of mine and Castlekey's is a VERY liberal doctor. She grew up in DC, daughter of very liberal parents, and of course, when she got married and got into practice, she moved right back to DC.

And started bitching about how horrible it was for her to not have representation in Congress.

Castlekey absolutely anchored her when he asked if she was scared when someone held a gun to her head and forced her to buy a half million dollar house in DC and thus deprived her of her rights...

She didn't have much to say to that.


I've always wanted to change DC's "slogan" on its license plates to "Willfully choosing to be unrepresented."

[Hawkmoon]

I don't disagree that it's what we have, I'm just not seeing why it's the best way to do it. When electing a president, why are states the level it should be "balanced" at? A simple popular vote gives every person the same weight, regardless of where they live - I still don't see how that needs any balancing. Why give power to the states when you can give power to the individual?

The electoral college is not "states." It is based on population, and the number of votes each state has is adjusted periodically based on the census.

https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-votes-by-state-in-2016-3322035

[Ben]

Also, as far as the "unfair" argument made by liberals, they always use CA, NY, and FL as the example states that are "unfairly treated". TX has more people than NY and FL. How come it's not "unfairly treated"? Even by population per electoral vote, it's still higher than FL, but never gets mentioned as getting unfair treatment.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html
https://makehoustongreat.com/2012/10/18/how-many-people-per-electoral-vote/

[Ben]

Oh, and back to the OP - Joy Reid doubles down. "Trump is dismantling all the programs that help you." Because all rural residents walk around in old overalls and shoes with holes in them while chewing a piece of straw. Nobody living outside the city can possibly make a living wage. Or be an engineer or a scientist or a doctor or a lawyer. 

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/11/28/condescend-much-joy-reid-doubles-down-on-hating-rural-america-claims-trump-is-laughing-at-them/

[DittoHead]

The electoral college is not "states." It is based on population, and the number of votes each state has is adjusted periodically based on the census.

https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-votes-by-state-in-2016-3322035

Ok, I'm not sure what your point is? It's winner take all (for the most part) at the state level and electors are based off the state's population. It balances the weight of the states. If you'd prefer, I can ask why it should be balanced at the "electoral college" level but the arguments are essentially the same.

[Kingcreek]

I'm of the opinion that cities are solidly Democratic because it's easier for the welfare party to deliver gobs of free *expletive deleted*it more efficiently to larger numbers of people. In other words, if you offer it, they will come.

agree.
and because the rural voters generally have more common sense and are more reasonable, they should have greater leverage over their urban liberal counterparts.

[charby]

I think rural will start flipping to the Democrats in the next couple of cycles unless take home pay starts increasing. Especially if the democrats start paying attention to them, back off on banning things and offer pleasing solutions.

[MechAg94]

I think rural will start flipping to the Democrats in the next couple of cycles unless take home pay starts increasing. Especially if the democrats start paying attention to them, back off on banning things and offer pleasing solutions.

Don't worry, the current group of liberals would never do that.

[MechAg94]

Ok, I'm not sure what your point is? It's winner take all (for the most part) at the state level and electors are based off the state's population. It balances the weight of the states. If you'd prefer, I can ask why it should be balanced at the "electoral college" level but the arguments are essentially the same.

DittoHead, the only "unbalance" is that states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes.  That is it.  The 535 votes are apportioned based on census population counts every 10 years.  A state like Wyoming might only get half a vote if it was done directly.  However, California gets 50 or so.  If California's population doubles and no one else increases, they will get more votes after the next census. 

[MechAg94]

I don't disagree that it's what we have, I'm just not seeing why it's the best way to do it. When electing a president, why are states the level it should be "balanced" at? A simple popular vote gives every person the same weight, regardless of where they live - I still don't see how that needs any balancing. Why give power to the states when you can give power directly to the individual?

Individuals did not ratify the Constitution of the United States.  States did.  That is why we are the United States and not the United Individuals. 

[charby]

Don't worry, the current group of liberals would never do that.

maybe a third more centralist party is going to emerge and attract everyone from the middle?

[KD5NRH]

Individuals did not ratify the Constitution of the United States.  States did.  That is why we are the United States and not the United Individuals.

And if we went back to a proper Federal system where the individual would never really care about FedGov except when travelling or doing business across state lines and/or national borders, most people would have a lot fewer complaints.

[French G.]

maybe a third mdore centralist party is going to emerge and attract everyone from the middle?

You running? The Democrats are in a suicide pact with their progressive radicals. No Joe Manchin, Jim Webb lukewarm types going to save them. And the other group? Well, we all know their name. Trump is about the worst conservative ever and he might be the first one to ever reduce the size of government.

[charby]

You running?

Honestly I doubt I could survive the social media bullying if I did run. I'm no boy scout, but my closet of skeletons is pretty tiny, so it would be a lot of nit picking mountain out a molehill.

[French G.]

Oh come on the campaign ads write themselves. Hugs trees! Gratuitous photo of bird hunting! Minority cab driver! Christ would somebody get this guy back to the tour bus he won't stop hunting!

[charby]

Oh come on the campaign ads write themselves. Hugs trees! Gratuitous photo of bird hunting! Minority cab driver! Christ would somebody get this guy back to the tour bus he won't stop hunting!

 

Don't forget: he doesn't give a flying f**k about passing any religious litmus tests.

[French G.]

I'll see to it that our Illinois members arrange multiple ballots for us to vote for you. And you have got the Iowa caucus locked down, haven't you already had coffee and a casserole with all those people?

[charby]

I'll see to it that our Illinois members arrange multiple ballots for us to vote for you. And you have got the Iowa caucus locked down, haven't you already had coffee and a casserole with all those people?

Pig Roast and Bicycle Ride