Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. Political Discussion
  3. But the polls bro...so scientific....

But the polls bro...so scientific....

Political Discussion
38 13 727
  • hoortaH hoorta

    @mld-woody said:

    Well she won the popular vote, and there were a lot of very tight states. It doesn't take a ton of votes to swing a ton of electoral college votes, in the grand scheme of things.

    Granted- but it's not the first time someone has won the popular vote, and lost the election. I'm sure the crybabies are going to push for getting rid of the electoral college after this one.

    I'd be in favor of breaking up California's 55 votes. Hillary won Cali and NY- those 2 states put you 31% on your way to 270.

    @hoorta said:

    Granted- but it's not the first time someone has won the popular vote, and lost the election. I'm sure the crybabies are going to push for getting rid of the electoral college after this one.

    I'd be in favor of breaking up California's 55 votes. Hillary won Cali and NY- those 2 states put you 31% on your way to 270.

    Well why should a vote in a big city essentially count for less?

    It is also funny that the founding fathers created the electoral college to basically prevent this exact type of thing from happening.

    Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!

  • wrong.

    if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations

    would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote

    be counted for nothing?

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-the-founders-created-the-electoral-college/

  • C calfoxwc

    wrong.

    if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations

    would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote

    be counted for nothing?

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-the-founders-created-the-electoral-college/

    @calfoxwc said:

    wrong.

    if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote

    be counted for nothing?

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-the-founders-created-the-electoral-college/

    I know there's a new electoral college thread, but...

    Wrong question, cal. The correct one is why should the smallest states' citizens' votes count disproportionately more than the largest's?

    Your reference is very selective in its citations of Hamilton's intent and ignores his actions when he saw the Electoral College being bastardized, but one thing it does do is say your position is incorrect:

    The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers.

    But as much as I love it when your own references support the opposite of your posts, I'll get into that in the new thread... so there's no reason for you to tell me how I'm wrong here.

    @bbedward said:

    Even though they've been saying the Democrats have a ridiculous advantage with the electoral map due to shifting demographics.

    Without the electoral college honestly California might as well be the only state that votes for the president - I'm up for reform but there has to be some kind of system to represent the rest of America too (like the electoral college)

    Unlike 2000 though, Trump won the electoral college in a landslide.

    Ditto on the "see you in the other thread", bb... including some information you apparently may lack for a change.

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196

  • The polls in the states trump won were off by 7 points when compared to the actual results (on average)

    :neutral_face:
  • Here is what I said, Tour:


    "wrong.

    if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote

    be counted for nothing?



    Wrong question, cal. The correct one is why should the smallest states' citizens' votes count disproportionately more than the largest's?


    Your reference is very selective in its citations of Hamilton's intent and ignores his actions when he saw the Electoral College being bastardized, but one thing it does do is say your position is incorrect:

    The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers.


    But as much as I love it when your own references support the opposite of your posts, I'll get into that in the new thread... so there's no reason for you to tell me how I'm wrong here.

    *************************************

    oh, yes there is. Look at what I said, and what you said. In effect, we are saying the same thing. The electoral college

    lends still-important status to states with less population, away from population centers like giant cities, so presidential candidates

    still need to take them into account.


    Tell me, how is it that you think your are correct, and I was wrong?

    Tour2maT 1 Reply

  • The constitution is set up to avoid decisions based on simple majorities. Consider what it takes to ratify an amendment. Or to pass a bill, it has to go through both legislatures and be signed by the president, and takes a super majority to over ride a presidential veto.

    I mean if simple majorities ruled and everything was based off of a simple majority of the vote our country would be much different today.

    :neutral_face:
  • C calfoxwc
    Here is what I said, Tour:


    "wrong.

    if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote

    be counted for nothing?



    Wrong question, cal. The correct one is why should the smallest states' citizens' votes count disproportionately more than the largest's?


    Your reference is very selective in its citations of Hamilton's intent and ignores his actions when he saw the Electoral College being bastardized, but one thing it does do is say your position is incorrect:

    The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers.


    But as much as I love it when your own references support the opposite of your posts, I'll get into that in the new thread... so there's no reason for you to tell me how I'm wrong here.

    *************************************

    oh, yes there is. Look at what I said, and what you said. In effect, we are saying the same thing. The electoral college

    lends still-important status to states with less population, away from population centers like giant cities, so presidential candidates

    still need to take them into account.


    Tell me, how is it that you think your are correct, and I was wrong?

    @calfoxwc said:

    Here is what I said, Tour:
    "wrong.
    if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote be counted for nothing?
    Wrong question, cal. The correct one is why should the smallest states' citizens' votes count disproportionately more than the largest's?
    Your reference is very selective in its citations of Hamilton's intent and ignores his actions when he saw the Electoral College being bastardized, but one thing it does do is say your position is incorrect:
    The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers.
    But as much as I love it when your own references support the opposite of your posts, I'll get into that in the new thread... so there's no reason for you to tell me how I'm wrong here.
    *************************************
    oh, yes there is. Look at what I said, and what you said. In effect, we are saying the same thing. The electoral college
    lends still-important status to states with less population, away from population centers like giant cities, so presidential candidates
    still need to take them into account.
    Tell me, how is it that you think your are correct, and I was wrong?

    Because your Dailer Caller argues that moving to a popular vote would cause smaller states' vote to be "counted for nothing".

    Popular vote determination would count all votes the same.

    I still have to get into the Electoral College thread... but too late tonite...

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196

  • but collectively, it would negate the legitimacy of sparsely population states in the process.

    NY, Cal., could easily rule the day, along with Philly, Chicago and Boston.

    The huge population of those few states would render alllllll the other states meaningless,

    and dominated forever, with the cities' interests much different that the sparsely populated states.

    Saying "all votes count the same", is meaningless when "giant population centers are the only interests

    that matter in the electoral process".

    It's like tyranny by giant cities. All those other states don't matter. That is the danger of the idea of

    a popular vote rule.

  • No... just no...

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196

  • Most certainly, YES. Saying "no" doesn't make you correct. That's just an old liberal mind trick. No workee.

    and I didn't say smaller states. Smaller populations per state.

Log in to reply