The Goat Pen

This injustice was caused by racism.

Speaking of which, PBS just suspended Tavis Smiley's show because of allegations of sexual misconduct. Who knew that PBS was filled with racists?

hedge wrote:Was that sardis or Prof that he was interviewing? I'm sure there views align very closely with this rube's...

I will have to say my neck is getting a bit Hank Hillish, lately,just like that Alabaman in the clip.

You've got ham on your neck?

Goodbye net neutality

Cletus wrote:Why should a vote in California count less than a vote in Wyoming?

it doesn't. A vote in California determines how the state of California assigns it delegates to a candidate. A vote in Wyoming determines how the state of Wyoming assigns it delegates.

Saint wrote:Goodbye net neutality

unfortunately I don't think anyone was suprised by this.

but I think they are vastly underestimate the backlash that is going to come from this.

This more than anything else could create single issue voters in revolt.

eCat wrote:

Cletus wrote:Why should a vote in California count less than a vote in Wyoming?

it doesn't. A vote in California determines how the state of California assigns it delegates to a candidate. A vote in Wyoming determines how the state of Wyoming assigns it delegates.

There are more delegates per capita in Wyoming than California. One vote in Wyoming is worth about four in California. The system is not even and gives outsized influence to states with few people. How does that make any sense?

My point was that nobody (as far as I've heard) complains about state officials (and US senators) being elected by a plain majority within any given state, even though I would guess it's highly likely, as in the case of Jones in Bama, that the highly populated urban areas generally decide who wins. But that sort of setup is directly opposed to what you said is fair when it comes to national elections. I would think if you thought it was unfair nationally, it would be equally unfair on the state level...

Cletus wrote:

eCat wrote:

Cletus wrote:Why should a vote in California count less than a vote in Wyoming?

it doesn't. A vote in California determines how the state of California assigns it delegates to a candidate. A vote in Wyoming determines how the state of Wyoming assigns it delegates.

There are more delegates per capita in Wyoming than California. One vote in Wyoming is worth about four in California. The system is not even and gives outsized influence to states with few people. How does that make any sense?

I would assume the forefathers in their infinite wisdom knew California would be full of asshats and illegals - and wanted neither to have a say in the election just because a large number of them choose to live in a temperate climate state. Kind of like how we don't pay attention to anyone from Florida.

hedge wrote:My point was that nobody (as far as I've heard) complains about state officials (and US senators) being elected by a plain majority within any given state, even though I would guess it's highly likely, as in the case of Jones in Bama, that the highly populated urban areas generally decide who wins. But that sort of setup is directly opposed to what you said is fair when it comes to national elections. I would think if you thought it was unfair nationally, it would be equally unfair on the state level...

or no one complained about it bitterly until Trump was elected because Hillary ran a horrible election where she refused to spend any time in states she either thought she had locked up or chose to ignore.

Yes, Trump won but the rules were the same for both sides in going in. Had we held the election based on popular vote, then who knows whether we'd have Trump or Hillary as our options , and if we did have those two and they ran on a popular vote they would have completely ignored the populations of smaller states.

I suspect that is exactly why Wyoming gets a disproportionate share of delegates because a popular vote contest means the candidates visit only population centers and ignore the rest of the country - which is pretty much what Cletus and his type want to begin with.

While most candidates focus on big cities and swing states at the end of the campaign, they don't start out that way. A popular vote would also pave the way for a regional candidate - A Jerry Brown for example to win the presidency even though he has zero appeal in a much larger % of the country.

"or no one complained about it bitterly until Trump was elected because Hillary ran a horrible election where she refused to spend any time in states she either thought she had locked up or chose to ignore."

I'm not complaining, bitterly or otherwise, about the legitimacy of Trump's electoral win. I'm just saying that I recall you saying that it was more fair that way so that the high populace urban areas don't get to have more influence than the "real" country. We debated why people in Iowa or Wyoming were more "real" than people from NY or LA, but the point I'm making now is that in state elections, including for US senator, the voters in large urban areas often decide the election, to the detriment of, I am guessing you believe, the "real" people in the counties with less than 25,000 total population. I guess my question still stands, why are the people of Birmingham less "real" than the rural dwellers? Why do you think it's OK in state elections for Birmingham to be able to decide the election in opposition to the will of the "real" people in Possum Gulch and the surrounding environs (maybe you don't think it's OK and you would actually prefer an electoral college system on the state level, but I haven't heard you talk about it if you do)...

I don't have an answer other than its just the way it is.

If the state voters had an issue with it, state voting laws are certainly more flexible than federal ones

If I had to guess it could be its not an issue because Senators are pretty good about getting out into the community - from rural to urban and there isn't so much concern for getting access or representation. Hell, Rob Portman lives about 6 miles from me, not that I've ever seen him or met him in person.

Like the Presidential elections, the voting for US Senators is governed by the constitution (17th Amendment) so there is not really any state leeway in changing it. Also, prior to 1964 the State Senate representations of many states had something like what you propose, which resulted in legislative bodies in which rural areas could have equal representation with urban ones (and thus overrepresented per person). Alabama's State Senate was actually where the case that changed all that originated, and their Senate was one Senator per county, which meant that Jefferson County (ie Birmingham) was only represented by a single Senator in the Alabama Senate. The Supreme Court in Reynolds v Sims said that each house of state legislatures must have "one person, one vote" provisions, so any state legislature must have houses that have districts with equal proportions of voters.

I’d like to believe that you’ll be squashed by a grain truck.

Georgia had a “county unit system” until 1962. It gave rural counties a disproportionately large influence compared to the urban counties, i.e. Atlanta. The bubbas didn’t want to get pushed around by the city boys in their fancy alligator shoes and zoot suits.

The EC was set up to protect slave states that had good sized populations but fewer eligible voters. That shit needs to go asap. After John Stuart Mill most democracies started using some measure of proportional representation. Not the good old USA though, where FPTP ensures it's physically impossible to vote against Goldman Sachs.

Mard. You people are stupid

Cletus wrote:

eCat wrote:

Cletus wrote:Why should a vote in California count less than a vote in Wyoming?

it doesn't. A vote in California determines how the state of California assigns it delegates to a candidate. A vote in Wyoming determines how the state of Wyoming assigns it delegates.

There are more delegates per capita in Wyoming than California. One vote in Wyoming is worth about four in California. The system is not even and gives outsized influence to states with few people. How does that make any sense?

The EC was designed to give a little extra influence to the state.

theoretically if we went to a popular vote no one in their righ minds would campaign in Dakotas or Kansas or nebrask or rhode island or missippi etc etc

every candidate would spend every waking moment in California florida texas newyork ohio

so basically those more populous area are voting for their own interests affecting the farmers ands ranchers and cowboys who only get 1 vote but who's lland is responsible for feeding 150-200 people an acre

you have 50 states that govern people in their own state but also in the context of the US--you cant have the 5 most populous states controlling the other 45 states just because they have the most population--you gotta give a little more voice to the little guy--That's the premise of the EC

Well said, crash. Ranchers and cowboys and the like got special consideration because they were spread out having to prod their sheep and goats (::), whereas urban people were bunched up and mostly useless. So ewe have to believe the prairie states got special consideration, voting-wise.

the bottom line is Wyoming isn't going to determine an election over California in regards to the EC