Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 03 Dec '16 14:37
    Assuming this is correct, consider the following.

    New York city has a population of about 8,500,000 people. Of that population about 58% voted Hillary while only about 37% voted Donald.

    There is your 2 million votes, or at least close to it.

    Do we want New York city to determine each President via a pure democracy or do we want the rest of the country to be represented as well?
  2. 03 Dec '16 15:24
    Originally posted by whodey
    Assuming this is correct, consider the following.

    New York city has a population of about 8,500,000 people. Of that population about 58% voted Hillary while only about 37% voted Donald.

    There is your 2 million votes, or at least close to it.

    Do we want New York city to determine each President via a pure democracy or do we want the rest of the country to be represented as well?
    it's not only the 2 million who would have decided, it would have been all the rest of the millions who voted for that particular candidate. the majority, you know? i know logic is hard for you but do try and understand that.

    you complain about "allowing" new york to decide the election (which is stupid and wouldn't have been the case anyway) but don't realize that the same thing can be said about the current system. do you want only North Dakota, Florida and Ohio (and a few other battleground states) to determine the president? do you want their votes to mean more than votes from California or Texas?
  3. Standard member Amaurote
    No Name Maddox
    03 Dec '16 15:48
    Leaving aside the arguments about whether right-wingers should have positive discrimination in the form of something that looks not unlike a fancy franchize, 2 million won't cut it, Hillary was at 2.5 million as of this morning. And the count continues.

    The good news is that your pollsters got it right, and have improved on their 2012 accuracy: 48.2% to 46.3% is pretty close, although you'll obviously have to factor in Trump's vote share continuing to slump over the next week or so before you gauge the full scale of his triumphant insurgency.
  4. 03 Dec '16 16:17
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    it's not only the 2 million who would have decided, it would have been all the rest of the millions who voted for that particular candidate. the majority, you know? i know logic is hard for you but do try and understand that.

    you complain about "allowing" new york to decide the election (which is stupid and wouldn't have been the case anyway) but don't ...[text shortened]... termine the president? do you want their votes to mean more than votes from California or Texas?
    So you would favor straight up democracy over the state representative system we have now?

    You would be OK with politicians only representing the major cities with the most people?
  5. 03 Dec '16 16:30
    Originally posted by whodey
    Assuming this is correct, consider the following.

    New York city has a population of about 8,500,000 people. Of that population about 58% voted Hillary while only about 37% voted Donald.

    There is your 2 million votes, or at least close to it.

    Do we want New York city to determine each President via a pure democracy or do we want the rest of the country to be represented as well?
    New York City has about 8.5 million people (I'll take your word for it). The rest of America has over 300 million people. Should the rest of America determine each President via a pure democracy or do we want New York City to be represented as well?
  6. 03 Dec '16 16:32
    Originally posted by whodey
    So you would favor straight up democracy over the state representative system we have now?

    You would be OK with politicians only representing the major cities with the most people?
    If the popular vote is used, a non-city inhabitant has just as much to say as a city inhabitant. Politicians would have an equal incentive to try and get these votes. Your objection is nonsensical.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Dec '16 17:13
    Right wingers have always objected to the rule of the People i.e. democracy.
  8. 03 Dec '16 17:24
    Originally posted by whodey
    So you would favor straight up democracy over the state representative system we have now?

    You would be OK with politicians only representing the major cities with the most people?
    "So you would favor straight up democracy over the state representative system we have now?"
    yes

    "You would be OK with politicians only representing the major cities with the most people?"
    would you rather a florida man decide your future than a new yorker or someone from los angeles?

    representing big cities spread across the entire country means much more people are affected than pandering to people from north dakota and ohio.
  9. 03 Dec '16 18:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Right wingers have always objected to the rule of the People i.e. democracy.
    Hillary got more primary votes than Obama in the 2008 Democrat primaries. I don't think she got the nomination though.

    The purpose of Democrat Super Delegates is precisely to take the nomination decision away from the voters.
  10. 03 Dec '16 19:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Right wingers have always objected to the rule of the People i.e. democracy.
    Actually, that would be the Founding Fathers.

    They were wary of a direct Democracy so they created a representative Republic instead.

    Obviously, you have nothing but disdain for them.
  11. 03 Dec '16 19:57
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "So you would favor straight up democracy over the state representative system we have now?"
    yes

    "You would be OK with politicians only representing the major cities with the most people?"
    would you rather a florida man decide your future than a new yorker or someone from los angeles?

    representing big cities spread across the entire country means much more people are affected than pandering to people from north dakota and ohio.
    When the US was formed, it was understood that states would be represented equally, despite their populations. It was the only way to get the states to join together to form a union, otherwise, the least populated states would have no incentive to join the union.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Dec '16 20:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Actually, that would be the Founding Fathers.

    They were wary of a direct Democracy so they created a representative Republic instead.

    Obviously, you have nothing but disdain for them.
    Obviously, you are ignorant of what the Founders believed in and just as obviously you are a pathetic liar to make the claim in the last sentence.

    But you are ignorant of virtually everything, seemingly deliberately so.

    They created a representative Republic based on democratic principles; as described by Locke and reiterated in the Declaration of Independence they believed that all governments derived their just powers from the popular consent of the People. Your idea that some people should have more say then others based on what patch of dirt they live on would be foreign to them.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Dec '16 20:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    When the US was formed, it was understood that states would be represented equally, despite their populations. It was the only way to get the states to join together to form a union, otherwise, the least populated states would have no incentive to join the union.
    No, it wasn't so understood and you are profoundly ignorant to make such a claim.

    There would be no House of Representatives or Electoral College if such a claim was true.
  14. 03 Dec '16 20:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    When the US was formed, it was understood that states would be represented equally, despite their populations. It was the only way to get the states to join together to form a union, otherwise, the least populated states would have no incentive to join the union.
    when the us was formed, it made use of slavery.

    times change, you abandon an awful system when you know better. you seem to not know better.
  15. 03 Dec '16 20:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    Actually, that would be the Founding Fathers.

    They were wary of a direct Democracy so they created a representative Republic instead.

    Obviously, you have nothing but disdain for them.
    it wasn't practical to have a direct democracy in a country spread over thousands of kilometers.

    what's your excuse now? you're afraid to have direct voting because the voting balots might get stolen by bandits?