Ocasio-Cortez: Electoral College is ‘Affirmative Action’ for Rural Americans
Comments
-
I don’t know what the fuck that means.CirrhosisDawg said:
King County’s white nationalists and protectionists are understandably melting down. Even those you would think know better.PurpleThrobber said:
And probably wouldn’t even without benefit of indica edibles and several shots of rye. -
Cannot stop laffing. YBFEoregonblitzkrieg said:
Translation:HHusky said:Thanks! I doubt it will happen anytime soon too. That doesn’t mean the Electoral College remains a good thing. It has plainly failed one of the very purposes it was meant to serve.
Imagine a vanity candidacy turning into a Presidency.
Right now large patches of dirt have too much political power.
We lost the election because we're shitbrains that run on a platform of fail, but it's not our fault, it's the electoral college that's the problem. Lets just get rid of it. -
Once again, we as a country are arguing about the wrong things. Until the system in which we nominate a candidate for president is fixed, keeping or doing away with the Electoral College doesn’t matter much. This article from Stanford Magazine (hi @Gladstone!) articulates it nicely:
“The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests...
...For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill...”
I’m not saying we should return to the old way of nominating a presidential candidate, but after watching the shit show that was the Democratic debates I know something needs to change at that level before we start tinkering with anything else. -
I am a fan of whoever makes the Dems the saddest
-
That and the fact that literally no one wants the job. So the couple prior who would actually be good would never run.Doog_de_Jour said:Once again, we as a country are arguing about the wrong things. Until the system in which we nominate a candidate for president is fixed, keeping or doing away with the Electoral College doesn’t matter much. This article from Stanford Magazine (hi @Gladstone!) articulates it nicely:
“The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests...
...For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill...”
I’m not saying we should return to the old way of nominating a presidential candidate, but after watching the shit show that was the Democratic debates I know something needs to change at that level before we start tinkering with anything else. -
I don’t know what the fuck that means.CirrhosisDawg said:
King County’s white nationalists and protectionists are understandably melting down. Even those you would think know better.PurpleThrobber said:
And probably wouldn’t even without benefit of indica edibles and several shots of rye.
Is that a call for genocide?Doog_de_Jour said:Once again, we as a country are arguing about the wrong things. Until the system in which we nominate a candidate for president is fixed, keeping or doing away with the Electoral College doesn’t matter much. This article from Stanford Magazine (hi @Gladstone!) articulates it nicely:
“The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests...
...For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill...”
I’m not saying we should return to the old way of nominating a presidential candidate, but after watching the shit show that was the Democratic debates I know something needs to change at that level before we start tinkering with anything else.
We'll allow it.
-
PurpleThrobber said:
I don’t know what the fuck that means.CirrhosisDawg said:
King County’s white nationalists and protectionists are understandably melting down. Even those you would think know better.PurpleThrobber said:
And probably wouldn’t even without benefit of indica edibles and several shots of rye.
Is that a call for genocide?Doog_de_Jour said:Once again, we as a country are arguing about the wrong things. Until the system in which we nominate a candidate for president is fixed, keeping or doing away with the Electoral College doesn’t matter much. This article from Stanford Magazine (hi @Gladstone!) articulates it nicely:
“The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests...
...For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. That system worked well until the two-party system briefly died with the Federalist Party. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. It seems to me that the original system may have been superior to what we now have. The elected officials of both parties have incentives to choose candidates with an eye toward popular electability and governing skill...”
I’m not saying we should return to the old way of nominating a presidential candidate, but after watching the shit show that was the Democratic debates I know something needs to change at that level before we start tinkering with anything else.
We'll allow it.
-
Absolutely not.CuntWaffle said:
Think we found CollegeDoog’s dad. Is needing an ID to vote racist?HHusky said:SRYK
But if black people, poor people and college students were voting Republican, Republicans wouldn't be interested in this particular voter suppression scam. -
Really? So Hillary is the President?MikeDamone said:
-
The best part is that Races vote went to Hillary because the electoral college.HHusky said: -
I voted for Trump
That's where my vote went
California went to Hillary
Note how I'm not crying like a bitch like hondo does -
The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny. Leftards love to control others. Liberty and freedom are overrated. The tug leftards love themselves some chicoms
-
But under the electoral college. Your vote went to Hillary. Mine went to spotted owl. HTHRaceBannon said:I voted for Trump
That's where my vote went
California went to Hillary
Note how I'm not crying like a bitch like hondo does -
No it didn't2001400ex said:
But under the electoral college. Your vote went to Hillary. Mine went to spotted owl. HTHRaceBannon said:I voted for Trump
That's where my vote went
California went to Hillary
Note how I'm not crying like a bitch like hondo does
My vote went to Trump
You voted for Hillary
You're still butthurt and crying like a bich because you lost
-
Yeah I'm the one who sounds like they are crying. I'm laughing my ass off cause your vote going to Hillary.RaceBannon said:
No it didn't2001400ex said:
But under the electoral college. Your vote went to Hillary. Mine went to spotted owl. HTHRaceBannon said:I voted for Trump
That's where my vote went
California went to Hillary
Note how I'm not crying like a bitch like hondo does
My vote went to Trump
You voted for Hillary
You're still butthurt and crying like a bich because you lost -
Trump won. Why would I be crying? I voted for him
You lost and are still crying like a bitch -
What part of 50 separate elections escapes you? Fuck head.2001400ex said:
But under the electoral college. Your vote went to Hillary. Mine went to spotted owl. HTHRaceBannon said:I voted for Trump
That's where my vote went
California went to Hillary
Note how I'm not crying like a bitch like hondo does -
There's a more imminent threat coming from the fascist left, where states are passing laws to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, which is another way to abolish electoral college without actually abolishing it. So basically this means if a red candidate won your state, but the blue candidate won the national popular vote, your state will give its electoral votes to the blue candidate, effectively overriding and removing the voting power of the citizens.
The solution: Remove and imprison all state officials that have and are attempting to undermine the electoral college system. -
M’eh. Only relevant in the whine ass coastal states.oregonblitzkrieg said:There's a more imminent threat coming from the fascist left, where states are passing laws to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, which is another way to abolish electoral college without actually abolishing it. So basically this means if a red candidate won your state, but the blue candidate won the national popular vote, your state will give its electoral votes to the blue candidate, effectively overriding and removing the voting power of the citizens.
The solution: Remove and imprison all state officials that have and are attempting to undermine the electoral college system.
The inlands won’t change.
Your perspective is warped living in the People’s Republics of Washington, Oregon and California.
The SCOTUS will laugh that movement out. -
Disagree.PurpleThrobber said:
M’eh. Only relevant in the whine ass coastal states.oregonblitzkrieg said:There's a more imminent threat coming from the fascist left, where states are passing laws to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, which is another way to abolish electoral college without actually abolishing it. So basically this means if a red candidate won your state, but the blue candidate won the national popular vote, your state will give its electoral votes to the blue candidate, effectively overriding and removing the voting power of the citizens.
The solution: Remove and imprison all state officials that have and are attempting to undermine the electoral college system.
The inlands won’t change.
Your perspective is warped living in the People’s Republics of Washington, Oregon and California.
-
But the only states which will only vote blue do thisoregonblitzkrieg said:There's a more imminent threat coming from the fascist left, where states are passing laws to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, which is another way to abolish electoral college without actually abolishing it. So basically this means if a red candidate won your state, but the blue candidate won the national popular vote, your state will give its electoral votes to the blue candidate, effectively overriding and removing the voting power of the citizens.
The solution: Remove and imprison all state officials that have and are attempting to undermine the electoral college system. -
“The electoral college is antiquated!!!”
What changed in the last 200+ years that makes it antiquated?
“The person I hate won!!!!!!”
OK!!!
-
However much sense an Electoral College made with 13 states, culturally unique regions, no mass communication and transportation by horse, it makes little sense now.MikeDamone said:“The electoral college is antiquated!!!”
What changed in the last 200+ years that makes it antiquated?
“The person I hate won!!!!!!”
OK!!! -
Not to mention it was set up for electorates at the state to be able to vote for someone other than the person who won the state. Which of course basically doesn't happen outside of the three votes that went to spotted owl.HHusky said:
However much sense an Electoral College made with 13 states, culturally unique regions, no mass communication and transportation by horse, it makes little sense now.MikeDamone said:“The electoral college is antiquated!!!”
What changed in the last 200+ years that makes it antiquated?
“The person I hate won!!!!!!”
OK!!! -
How so. Please explain. You didn’t make an argument.HHusky said:
However much sense an Electoral College made with 13 states, culturally unique regions, no mass communication and transportation by horse, it makes little sense now.MikeDamone said:“The electoral college is antiquated!!!”
What changed in the last 200+ years that makes it antiquated?
“The person I hate won!!!!!!”
OK!!!
We still have culturally unique regions. Why is it antiquated?
Saying they electoral college is antiquated is the equivalent to saying a representative republic is antiquated. I’m thinking leftists would agree a representative republic is antiquated though. -
SCOTUS trumps state legislatures
SWIDT?
-
There is far more homogeneity in American culture by region than existed in 1789. Most of those people regarded themselves as New Englanders, Virginians, etc. at least as much as they did Americans. And in an America that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the risk that someone can win the popular vote merely by winning a landslide victory in any particular place is much less than it was then.
-
BullshitHHusky said:There is far more homogeneity in American culture by region than existed in 1789. Most of those people regarded themselves as New Englanders, Virginians, etc. at least as much as they did Americans. And in an America that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the risk that someone can win the popular vote merely by winning a landslide victory in any particular place is much less than it was then.
California and New York
Both states get electoral votes matching their population
There aren't 57 electoral votes one for each state
If California votes GOP the electoral college is great
-
I regard myself as a badassHHusky said:There is far more homogeneity in American culture by region than existed in 1789. Most of those people regarded themselves as New Englanders, Virginians, etc. at least as much as they did Americans. And in an America that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the risk that someone can win the popular vote merely by winning a landslide victory in any particular place is much less than it was then.
And I regard you as a pussy
Change my mind. -
Without an Electoral College, it would still make sense for Daddy to seek votes in California and New York. Right now, it doesn’t.RaceBannon said:
BullshitHHusky said:There is far more homogeneity in American culture by region than existed in 1789. Most of those people regarded themselves as New Englanders, Virginians, etc. at least as much as they did Americans. And in an America that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the risk that someone can win the popular vote merely by winning a landslide victory in any particular place is much less than it was then.
California and New York
Both states get electoral votes matching their population
There aren't 57 electoral votes one for each state
If California votes GOP the electoral college is great
