California Assembly approves electoral vote change

David St. Hubbins said:
Even assuming you are correct about how the candidates would act, who cares? Right now the three most populous states are ignored and the lesser populations states are ignored in favor of a handful of "swing" states. How is the the status quo better than candidates campaigning for the broadest appeal of the entire population?



It already passed in California twice only to be vetoed by Ahnuld. I'm guessing the new Gov will sign it.

I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement as to whether it is more important to ensure states are represented as opposed to the will of all of the people respected. I prefer the latter and don't really see a legitimate argument in favor of the former.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't change anything, until enough states are willing to pass it as well. And yes, we have a fundamental disagreement. It's the same argument that has been going on since the inception of the Federal Republic. Some people believe that the centralized government is better, others think that centralizing power is a mistake. This is part of that age-old argument.
 
Yurt said:
your point? the end result is 3 vs. 55...wrap your wee little brain around that

wyoming has 5% of cali's electoral power :pke:
Click to expand...


Wyoming has 5.4% of California's electoral power and 1.4% of its population. Do I really need to break this down for you?

You been drinking more than usual or something?
 
Good Luck said:
Ignorance will end up destroying this nation.

Do you brain dead balloons of flatulence think the founders did not realize exactly what they were doing when they decided to institute the electoral college for electing the President instead of going with a straight popular vote? And PLEASE don't come out with the tired old "They did it because of lack of communication technology" crap. If delegates knew what the popular vote of their state was coming in to cast their electoral votes, then they could have as easily delivered that information instead of casting delegate votes. (and how the hell else could they know who to cast their vote for if they didn't know the popular vote of their respective states?)

No, the college was set up on purpose because they recognized the danger of high population states having undue influence over presidential elections. They knew full well that there was the possibility that the college vote could end up overturning the popular vote. But they felt it far more important that any presidential candidate need to carry broad appeal across many states, rather than just a few of the most populated in order to pay obeisance to the popular vote. (Do try to remember that we were set up as a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy.)

They also recognized a basic truth that the president is not SUPPOSED to be a popularly elected figure. The job of representative belongs to congress. A popularly elected president would, by necessity, be beholden to the popular faction that put them in power. (There is way too much of that even with the College in place.) Nothing can possibly be worse for an executive position. The president is an administrative job, not representative, and therefore popular vote should not, and if we are lucky, will not be the sole determining factor in electing our president.
Click to expand...

I didn't bother answering your pompous self important retarded post but Nigel did a fine job. Rootbeer was right. What a partisan hack.
 
Good Luck said:
You can actually come out with the sheer unadulterated brainless tripe seen above, and claim to be INFORMED?
Click to expand...

Are you actualy ignorant enough to think I was claiming to be informed? Maybe you can get someone to read my post to you and explain what the words mean.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Wyoming has 5.4% of California's electoral power and 1.4% of its population. Do I really need to break this down for you?

You been drinking more than usual or something?
Click to expand...

so 5.4% is UNDUE influence....? and you question whether i've been drinking...LOL. do you even know what undue influence means? i don't think you do.

undue influence means that wyoming's 5.4% can take advantage of california's 55 electoral votes, such that california essentially has no power over wyoming's votes and california will agree with anything wyoming wants because they are in such a position of power.

you should just man up for once and admit you're wrong before you further embarrass yourself.
 
Damocles said:
Which doesn't change anything, until enough states are willing to pass it as well. And yes, we have a fundamental disagreement. It's the same argument that has been going on since the inception of the Federal Republic. Some people believe that the centralized government is better, others think that centralizing power is a mistake. This is part of that age-old argument.
Click to expand...

I don't really get the "some people . . ." sentence. The national popular vote doesn't centralize anything, the electoral college does. It centralizes presidential elections in a cadre of "swing" states rather than to the people as a whole.
 
Yurt said:
so 5.4% is UNDUE influence....? and you question whether i've been drinking...LOL. do you even know what undue influence means? i don't think you do.

undue influence means that wyoming's 5.4% can take advantage of california's 55 electoral votes, such that california essentially has no power over wyoming's votes and california will agree with anything wyoming wants because they are in such a position of power.

you should just man up for once and admit you're wrong before you further embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot.
 
dune is a mental midget who can't debate

i challenge dune to try and defend nigel's position. or, at least show how my posts were wrong. i don't think dune has the intelligence or guts to do so. i predict he will not address my points and instead solely ad hom.
 
Yurt said:
dune is a mental midget who can't debate

i challenge dune to try and defend nigel's position. or, at least show how my posts were wrong. i don't think dune has the intelligence or guts to do so. i predict he will not address my points and instead solely ad hom.
Click to expand...


I challenge you to make a post that makes a lick of sense.
 
Yurt said:
dune is a mental midget who can't debate

i challenge dune to try and defend nigel's position. or, at least show how my posts were wrong. i don't think dune has the intelligence or guts to do so. i predict he will not address my points and instead solely ad hom.
Click to expand...

Read post #29 ball licker.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I challenge you to make a post that makes a lick of sense.
Click to expand...

you mean like the above and your other gem full of intelligence:

You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

way to really show how smart you are. ignore the discussion and focus on ad homs. a sure sign you've lost, but all know nigel dung never admits he is wrong.

you don't have a fucking clue what undue influence means and you incorrectly applied it in this case. rather than admit it, or even at least try and defend your position, you have nothing but ad homs. weak nigel....real weak.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I don't really get the "some people . . ." sentence. The national popular vote doesn't centralize anything, the electoral college does. It centralizes presidential elections in a cadre of "swing" states rather than to the people as a whole.
Click to expand...

Sounds like this was said by a person who lives in an area where all the power will be centralized. It simply gives population centers the power to control states with less population, "It doesn't matter how you vote, your vote will still go for whoever wins in the population centers."
 
Yurt said:
you mean like the above and your other gem full of intelligence:



way to really show how smart you are. ignore the discussion and focus on ad homs. a sure sign you've lost, but all know nigel dung never admits he is wrong.

you don't have a fucking clue what undue influence means and you incorrectly applied it in this case. rather than admit it, or even at least try and defend your position, you have nothing but ad homs. weak nigel....real weak.
Click to expand...

If you were half as smart as Nigel you would be formidable
 
Rep. Joe Wilson R said:
Read post #39 ball licker.
Click to expand...

i did....i made that post moron...

i'm not surprised my prediction came true and that you cannot defend nigel's position. you just aren't smart enough to even try. stick the attacks mr. i want to patch things up....it suits you and really, is all you're mentally capable of.

i'll give you a chance though:

how is wyoming's electoral votes an undue influence on american politics?
 
Yurt said:
i did....i made that post moron...

i'm not surprised my prediction came true and that you cannot defend nigel's position. you just aren't smart enough to even try. stick the attacks mr. i want to patch things up....it suits you and really, is all you're mentally capable of.

i'll give you a chance though:

how is wyoming's electoral votes an undue influence on american politics?
Click to expand...

Post #29.
 
Yurt said:
you mean like the above and your other gem full of intelligence
Click to expand...

I thought that was a post of the week nominee.


Yurt said:
way to really show how smart you are. ignore the discussion and focus on ad homs. a sure sign you've lost, but all know nigel dung never admits he is wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring anything. It's just that I've decided that, rather than endlessly "debate" things to death, I'll cut it short when the person I am"debating" reveals himself to be an idiot and just leave it at that.

Yurt said:
you don't have a fucking clue what undue influence means and you incorrectly applied it in this case. rather than admit it, or even at least try and defend your position, you have nothing but ad homs. weak nigel....real weak.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you have a problem with how "undue influence" was applied in this discussion you should take it up with GL. He introduced the term to the discussion. But, he didn't incorrectly apply it, and neither did I. And I have defended my position with very basic fact that indisputably prove my position to be correct. It isn't my problem if you lack the ability to grasp the significance of those facts.
 
Yurt said:
how is wyoming's electoral votes an undue influence on american politics?

no surprise you run away from answering a simple question
Click to expand...

Do I really have to explain to you how a state with more electors as a percent of population has and undue influence corn eater?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top