The post that was quoted here has been removedI get the muscular arm, and the fragility bit, but all of that is overlooked by wise people who see how smart he is. You apparently confirm that in your post.
How bout you tell us what would be a better strategy for Trump. though I cannot think of one. I could be sarcastic, but there is no need. Let us just watch him work the magic.
PS: Thank you Duchess, for saying electoral strategy. You apparently get that, as well. Just about everyone in the entire forum is fixated on the popular (mob) vote.
@averagejoe1 saidWhy do you have a problem with the concept of "one person, one vote"? Why do you have to do everything in your power to give the remnants of the Republican Party uneven power to decide what every American should have a voice in? Is it because under "one person, one vote", the essence of democracy, your minority would never get their selfish way again and the country would finally be out from under your desire to "control or destroy" it?
I get the muscular arm, and the fragility bit, but all of that is overlooked by wise people who see how smart he is. You apparently confirm that in your post.
How bout you tell us what would be a better strategy for Trump. though I cannot think of one. I could be sarcastic, but there is no need. Let us just watch him work the magic.
PS: Thank you Duchess, for sayi ...[text shortened]... ly get that, as well. Just about everyone in the entire forum is fixated on the popular (mob) vote.
03 Sep 20
@suzianne saidLord, Suzianne, there are REAMS of papers, books, editorials all about the reasons that the Electoral College was established,, and I am sorry to tell you that the general consensus is that it will never go away. That is one subject I am happy not to ramble on about,,,,,of course, I believe in it for the obvious reasons (6 high-population states could decide the election every time). Wyoming need not bother going to the polls...they would have no say. Would you really want that?
Why do you have a problem with the concept of "one person, one vote"? Why do you have to do everything in your power to give the remnants of the Republican Party uneven power to decide what every American should have a voice in? Is it because under "one person, one vote", the essence of democracy, your minority would never get their selfish way again and the country would finally be out from under your desire to "control or destroy" it?
And indeed, every person, through their representatives in the College, would have a voice.
03 Sep 20
@averagejoe1 saidElectoral College is affirmative action for rural whites
Lord, Suzianne, there are REAMS of papers, books, editorials all about the reasons that the Electoral College was established,, and I am sorry to tell you that the general consensus is that it will never go away. That is one subject I am happy not to ramble on about,,,,,of course, I believe in it for the obvious reasons (6 high-population states could decide the electio ...[text shortened]... that?
And indeed, every person, through their representatives in the College, would have a voice.
03 Sep 20
@averagejoe1 saidWhy do you keep pretending not to understand that everybody in Wyoming would get exactly the same electoral clout as everyone in a more populous state?
Lord, Suzianne, there are REAMS of papers, books, editorials all about the reasons that the Electoral College was established,, and I am sorry to tell you that the general consensus is that it will never go away. That is one subject I am happy not to ramble on about,,,,,of course, I believe in it for the obvious reasons (6 high-population states could decide the electio ...[text shortened]... that?
And indeed, every person, through their representatives in the College, would have a voice.
When a minority of the turnout wins an election you cannot legitimately call yourselves a democracy. I’m not judging we have the same issue in the UK because rather than the number of actual votes cast for any given party it’s decided by First past the post constituency voting, so if you vote for the losing candidate in your constituency your vote is in effect discarded.
03 Sep 20
@averagejoe1 saidWhy are you happy to give an outsize influence to 174,419 Republican voters in Wyoming, but don't care that the votes of the 2,819,534 Republican voters in New York or the 4,483,810 Republican voters in California counted for nothing in the 2016 election?
of course, I believe in it for the obvious reasons (6 high-population states could decide the election every time). Wyoming need not bother going to the polls...they would have no say. Would you really want that?
Given the present rural / urban split in the US, one thing the electoral college most effectively does is effectively disenfranchise rural voters who happen to live in states that also contain large cities.
03 Sep 20
@teinosuke saidThis is answered on the internet, and we have debated this too much. There are easily understood (whether you argree or not) explanations of the pros and cons. If your brother lives in Wyoming, ask him why he likes the Electoral College idea. Please understand, that seven of the states that will vote for democrats every time make up almost 30% of the popular vote. 30%. Those states wield great influence, don't you think. WY only has 1% of the US population. Vermont is 1%, they will negate each other, and so on.
Why are you happy to give an outsize influence to 174,419 Republican voters in Wyoming, but don't care that the votes of the 2,819,534 Republican voters in New York or the 4,483,810 Republican voters in California counted for nothing in the 2016 election?
Given the present rural / urban split in the US, one thing the electoral college most effectively does is effectively disenfranchise rural voters who happen to live in states that also contain large cities.
The big states will own the little states. Little states will have no say when the Federal govt doesn't pay attention to them, and puts big money into fixing the subway in New York. Not good.
@Duchess64
One word needs changing.
Many Politicians care more about 'winning' at any cost than about democratic representation.
I'll wager that the Dems will get caught cheating in the election in November.
Win at all costs.
- Joined
- 06 Jul 20
- Moves
- 115
04 Sep 20
@earl-of-trumps saidGreat. The fight over the Election will go to the streets. I have never been in a Street. And we will have an old hag lady with bad hair in a walker as our president. Did you see how she could not even step into the salon room without almost falling down
@Duchess64
One word needs changing.
Many Politicians care more about 'winning' at any cost than about democratic representation.
I'll wager that the Dems will get caught cheating in the election in November.
Win at all costs.