Conquer Club

Wyoming - about 177,000 people per electoral vote
New York- about 629,000 people for electoral vote

California - 12% of the population - 55 electoral votes
The 21 lowest states based on pop(+DC)- 11.25% - 95 electoral votes

And for those of you who don't know about electoral votes, 1 for each congressman, 538 total, the president needs majority. I see some major inequalities in our current system. What merits does it have? Do these outweigh its obvious flaws?

Yes, the American public doesn't actually nominate the president. It is essentially two people that the two biggest parties pick, then we decide between them. Oh, and getting a majority of the public votes, doesn't necessitate that that candidate wins. It is actually the electoral college that picks the president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29 Harrison, Hayes, and oh, Mr. George W. Bush all got less than the majority of the popular vote, yet they still became president.

The Electoral College, as you point out, works from the assumption that majority rules is unimportant, and supporting the EC is supporting the idea that we don't have an equal political say. Trash that shit.

Whats the issue here? Everyone knows Wyomng is 6x better than NY.

Lock the thread maybe?

Burrito wrote:Yes, the American public doesn't actually nominate the president. It is essentially two people that the two biggest parties pick, then we decide between them. Oh, and getting a majority of the public votes, doesn't necessitate that that candidate wins. It is actually the electoral college that picks the president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29 Harrison, Hayes, and oh, Mr. George W. Bush all got less than the majority of the popular vote, yet they still became president.

Yes I know how the electoral collage works, and that presidents can lose the popular vote, and win the electoral vote. I was asking more for your personal view of this.

none of you understand the purpose of the electoral college

It's absolute bull, and completely against democracy. Bad enough that Our government is so powerful they can do pretty much anything that they want, but we actually have no direct control over who is in charge.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:none of you understand the purpose of the electoral college

Well then enlighten us, O wise Sultan, as to what possible merits this has, that don't directly contradict the very basis of democracy?

SultanOfSurreal wrote:none of you understand the purpose of the electoral college

No, I just feel that the reasons for its existence aren't good enough to overturn true democracy. Giving rural states a huge advantage still isn't enough to make politicians pay attention to rural areas, they just campaign in the most concentrated areas they can find, your Sioux Falls', your Cheyennes. Nobody is thinking about which way Montana is gonna swing come election time.

... the Banzhaf Power Index (BPI) model based on probability theory was used to test the hypothesis that citizens of small states accrue more election power. It was found that in 1990, individual voters in California, the largest state, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a President than voters of Montana, the largest of the minimum 3 elector states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzhaf_Power_Index

Edit: How do you delete posts? I posted it twice

Nobunaga wrote:... the Banzhaf Power Index (BPI) model based on probability theory was used to test the hypothesis that citizens of small states accrue more election power. It was found that in 1990, individual voters in California, the largest state, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a President than voters of Montana, the largest of the minimum 3 elector states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzhaf_Power_Index

First of all, no, the BPI shows California has more chance to swing an election(duh), than Montana. Individual power is electoral vote per person.

Second of all, that article doesn't support your purported view. What I think you took to mean this was the chart of California new york and Ohio, and all that is saying, is that california, with 55 votes, would decide the winner between those three states no matter how everywhere else voted (55>54 votes), but that is irrelevant.

America isnt a communist country so yes some people are better than others, but those that are on the down side have the chance to better their situations, thats why America is one of the leading countries in the world. So cut the Some are more equal than others crap or you can move if thats how you feel.

Also the electoral college was created to give the small states some say in the elections, if there was no college all you would need is those votes from the big cities to win and no one would give a d*** about states like Wyoming.

jonka wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... the Banzhaf Power Index (BPI) model based on probability theory was used to test the hypothesis that citizens of small states accrue more election power. It was found that in 1990, individual voters in California, the largest state, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a President than voters of Montana, the largest of the minimum 3 elector states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzhaf_Power_Index

First of all, no, the BPI shows California has more chance to swing an election(duh), than Montana. Individual power is electoral vote per person.

Second of all, that article doesn't support your purported view. What I think you took to mean this was the chart of California new york and Ohio, and all that is saying, is that california, with 55 votes, would decide the winner between those three states no matter how everywhere else voted (55>54 votes), but that is irrelevant.

... Jonka, I didn't have a view, actually, just throwing up something I found to be interesting. What was I trying to support again?

...

Nobunaga wrote:

jonka wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... the Banzhaf Power Index (BPI) model based on probability theory was used to test the hypothesis that citizens of small states accrue more election power. It was found that in 1990, individual voters in California, the largest state, had 3.3 times more individual power to choose a President than voters of Montana, the largest of the minimum 3 elector states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzhaf_Power_Index

First of all, no, the BPI shows California has more chance to swing an election(duh), than Montana. Individual power is electoral vote per person.

Second of all, that article doesn't support your purported view. What I think you took to mean this was the chart of California new york and Ohio, and all that is saying, is that california, with 55 votes, would decide the winner between those three states no matter how everywhere else voted (55>54 votes), but that is irrelevant.

... Jonka, I didn't have a view, actually, just throwing up something I found to be interesting. What was I trying to support again?

...

That "California, the largest state, had 3.3x times more individual power to choose a president than voters of Montana, the largest of the minimum 3 elector states."

Japs wrote:America isnt a communist country so yes some people are better than others, but those that are on the down side have the chance to better their situations, thats why America is one of the leading countries in the world. So cut the Some are more equal than others crap or you can move if thats how you feel.

Also the electoral college was created to give the small states some say in the elections, if there was no college all you would need is those votes from the big cities to win and no one would give a d*** about states like Wyoming.

This has nothing to do with equality of wealth, this is equality of voting power, or rather a lack of it.

I would have agreed with you when people would have identified themselves by their state, but now, we are a nation state, so we say I am from the USA, rather than Virginia, New york, Texas, etc. We all are more a part of the US, rather than of our states, and our voting process should change to reflect that. Cities have always carried the US since the industrial revolution, other countries with less power in the rural areas also tend to have more power. (example, Japan has way more power per individual, than agricultural India)

Finally, I find it distasteful and offensive, that when you are confronted by a logical and reasonable, that you would like to deny me my constitutional rights, because you don't agree with me.

I say get rid of the system. It is an archaic system that had more meaning by in the early days of our country, than it does today.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:none of you understand the purpose of the electoral college

The reason why they created it was because the founding fathers thought the masses were idiots and wouldn't be able to understand the issues at hand and would vote for the wrong person (to give them created at that time, news traveled slowly and most of the public was illiterate). They also feared that radical groups may get a foothold on power and be voted in to the presidency by popular vote (reason why Senators were originally voted in by state legislatures).

jonka wrote:

Japs wrote:America isnt a communist country so yes some people are better than others, but those that are on the down side have the chance to better their situations, thats why America is one of the leading countries in the world. So cut the Some are more equal than others crap or you can move if thats how you feel.

Also the electoral college was created to give the small states some say in the elections, if there was no college all you would need is those votes from the big cities to win and no one would give a d*** about states like Wyoming.

This has nothing to do with equality of wealth, this is equality of voting power, or rather a lack of it.

I would have agreed with you when people would have identified themselves by their state, but now, we are a nation state, so we say I am from the USA, rather than Virginia, New york, Texas, etc. We all are more a part of the US, rather than of our states, and our voting process should change to reflect that. Cities have always carried the US since the industrial revolution, other countries with less power in the rural areas also tend to have more power. (example, Japan has way more power per individual, than agricultural India)

Finally, I find it distasteful and offensive, that when you are confronted by a logical and reasonable, that you would like to deny me my constitutional rights, because you don't agree with me.

Where am I denying your constitutional rights, I stick by the constitution as the supreme law of the land and if I did that im sorry.

I do agree that our voting structure should change now as we progressed but Its a tough fix, you cant just say no more electoral college and be done with it.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:none of you understand the purpose of the electoral college

The Electoral College was devised in the era where delegates from every region would travel on horses (or horse drawn wagons) to cast their votes in Washington DC. I'd like to think technology has advanced enough to make this process obsolete and that a better form of democratic process could be developed... where every vote is counted.

If every vote actually meant something it's quite possible that voter apathy would finally cease and people might actually make an effort to go to the polls.

Japs wrote:America isnt a communist country so yes some people are better than others, but those that are on the down side have the chance to better their situations, thats why America is one of the leading countries in the world. So cut the Some are more equal than others crap or you can move if thats how you feel.

OK, no. No, I think that complaining about our country is one of the main reasons we are only partially backwards. Plus, the American Dream is dead. It has actually been dead for a while. The middle class is disappearing, as demonstrated by the richest 1% of America having as much money as the poorest 90%.

Japs wrote:Also the electoral college was created to give the small states some say in the elections, if there was no college all you would need is those votes from the big cities to win and no one would give a d*** about states like Wyoming.

The small states should have a small representation. We already fronted you the fucking Senate. Sorry, but your opinion isn't worth more just because you're more spread out than the rest of us.

Burrito wrote:It's absolute bull, and completely against democracy. Bad enough that Our government is so powerful they can do pretty much anything that they want, but we actually have no direct control over who is in charge.

Well, voting for president/party is and of itself extremely important, but hey other than that you can vote for your local Congressman and Senators, as well as the municipal politicians and their related goons as well as the local judges. But yeah, hardly any direct control, so what do you suggest? The people are allowed to vote on the head director of the NSA and other main intelligences agencies as well as decide the future Joint Chiefs of Staff? Next we'll hold elections on which companies/interest groups are allowed to use lobbyists.

That'll really put the power in the hands of the people , but wait! A LARGE number of Americans don't know what the hell I'm talking about and wouldn't give a damn either. The complacency and ignorance of the American public at large is a shame. An international loss of face, but a real funny joke--the world being largely influenced by the most powerful nation which has just about the least internationally-aware and -caring people in the world. Another funny thing I've heard was this reporter's suggestion that the whole world should vote on the president of the United States.

Frigidus wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:none of you understand the purpose of the electoral college

No, I just feel that the reasons for its existence aren't good enough to overturn true democracy. Giving rural states a huge advantage still isn't enough to make politicians pay attention to rural areas, they just campaign in the most concentrated areas they can find, your Sioux Falls', your Cheyennes. Nobody is thinking about which way Montana is gonna swing come election time.

First of all, there's no such thing as true democracy. Or any true form of government. Impossible, so please expand on what you define as "true" democracy instead of merely saying true democracy.

Also, nobody WILL be thinking about which way Montona swings a vote because it only has 967,440 people (.3% of the total US population) and a whopping 3 electoral votes of the 538 total (.5%), so it's justified rolling through countryside and stopping by the biggest concentrations. Boo hoo, too bad. Go write a letter to your senator and congressman, and the president as well. See what happens.

Japs wrote:America isnt a communist country so yes some people are better than others, but those that are on the down side have the chance to better their situations, thats why America is one of the leading countries in the world. So cut the Some are more equal than others crap or you can move if thats how you feel.

Ok, there's more reasons than that for America being one of the leading countries in the world. And everyone in the world has the "chance" to better their situations, but really how much of chance does an African-American in some of the poorest parts of this country have? Haha, and "that's why America is one of the leading countries of the world." That's rubbish. And one can say, "OBAMA," and yes good point, but don't forget his upbringings as well as his immediate environment leading from childhood to now, which is extremely different from my example.

Hahaha, communism. Yes you're right. So according to you, if America was communist, then there would be NO people who are better than others. I like that! Yes, cast your vote for BigBallinStalin, and there will be NO inequality since we will be communist. Never mind the history of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China! As president, I certainly won't repeat those mistakes--I can assure you of this!

Japs wrote:Also the electoral college was created to give the small states some say in the elections, if there was no college all you would need is those votes from the big cities to win and no one would give a d*** about states like Wyoming.

Hey, let's butcher history and ignore a multitude of factors by making a poorly thought-out reply and then dropping it here like a turd in the toilet.

jonka wrote:This has nothing to do with equality of wealth, this is equality of voting power, or rather a lack of it.

I disagree. The distribution, or equality, of wealth plays a vast role on the so-called equality of voting power. To be very general about this matter, if one were to be raised in a very poor neighborhood, we can assume that one would most likely have poor access to a good education; therefore, his educational upbringing would greatly affect how that individual views this country and its candidates.

jonka wrote:I would have agreed with you when people would have identified themselves by their state, but now, we are a nation state, so we say I am from the USA, rather than Virginia, New york, Texas, etc. We all are more a part of the US, rather than of our states, and our voting process should change to reflect that. Cities have always carried the US since the industrial revolution, other countries with less power in the rural areas also tend to have more power. (example, Japan has way more power per individual, than agricultural India)

As for cities? More rubbish. American cities are dependent upon their hinterlands as well as the nation's vast quantities as well as accessibility to resources found in rural areas. Only regarding this point of view, had the Southern States successfully separated from the United States, the Good 'Ol United States would certainly have food and clothing issues, not to mention oil and other immensely important resources found in the south, that would have severely crippled its ability to project power through militaristic, economic, and political means.

And I'm in no way suggesting that my hypothetical observation mentioned above should have happened.

jonka wrote:Finally, I find it distasteful and offensive, that when you are confronted by a logical and reasonable, that you would like to deny me my constitutional rights, because you don't agree with me.

For reasons of clarity, which constitutional rights is this man denying you?

oVo wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:none of you understand the purpose of the electoral college

The Electoral College was devised in the era where delegates from every region would travel on horses (or horse drawn wagons) to cast their votes in Washington DC. I'd like to think technology has advanced enough to make this process obsolete and that a better form of democratic process could be developed... where every vote is counted.

Right, but what better way is there to control future candidates in the primaries by appointing easily influenced individuals to the Electoral College? The American government likes the status quo.

oVo wrote:If every vote actually meant something it's quite possible that voter apathy would finally cease and people might actually make an effort to go to the polls.

[/quote]
Maybe not finally cease, but we'd see much less apathy; however, this is an excellent point.

Japs wrote:Where am I denying your constitutional rights, I stick by the constitution as the supreme law of the land and if I did that im sorry.

I do agree that our voting structure should change now as we progressed but Its a tough fix, you cant just say no more electoral college and be done with it.

Where you wish to deny me my right to free speech by saying "So cut the Some are more equal than others crap or you can move if thats how you feel.". No, I have every right to attempt to change the future of the US, Your view isn't any more american because it is traditional.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Japs wrote:America isnt a communist country so yes some people are better than others, but those that are on the down side have the chance to better their situations, thats why America is one of the leading countries in the world. So cut the Some are more equal than others crap or you can move if thats how you feel.

Ok, there's more reasons than that for America being one of the leading countries in the world. And everyone in the world has the "chance" to better their situations, but really how much of chance does an African-American in some of the poorest parts of this country have? Haha, and "that's why America is one of the leading countries of the world." That's rubbish. And one can say, "OBAMA," and yes good point, but don't forget his upbringings as well as his immediate environment leading from childhood to now, which is extremely different from my example.

No, even blacks can better their situations, there is more help for college and high school scholarships out there availible for minorities than whites. Sorry, but America is one of the leading countries in the world, prove me wrong with facts instead of open ended statements, never said Obama lets leave him out of this. And yes I know that there are more reason than the American dream ,which isnt dead you just refuse to recognize it, for the US being a Superpower, that is just the one I pointed out.

Hahaha, communism. Yes you're right. So according to you, if America was communist, then there would be NO people who are better than others. I like that! Yes, cast your vote for BigBallinStalin, and there will be NO inequality since we will be communist. Never mind the history of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China! As president, I certainly won't repeat those mistakes--I can assure you of this!

No I never siad if America was communist, communism doesnt work, it looks good on paper but like you pointed out someone always lets the power go to their head, read animal farm, it could help you out

Japs wrote:Also the electoral college was created to give the small states some say in the elections, if there was no college all you would need is those votes from the big cities to win and no one would give a d*** about states like Wyoming.

Hey, let's butcher history and ignore a multitude of factors by making a poorly thought-out reply and then dropping it here like a turd in the toilet.

Hey, lets make us bs and post it in response because I dont like Japs comments. No, tell me how I butchered history and dropped it like a turd in a toilet, Im actually very educated on American History.

edit* typos

jonka wrote:

Japs wrote:Where am I denying your constitutional rights, I stick by the constitution as the supreme law of the land and if I did that im sorry.

I do agree that our voting structure should change now as we progressed but Its a tough fix, you cant just say no more electoral college and be done with it.

Where you wish to deny me my right to free speech by saying "So cut the Some are more equal than others crap or you can move if thats how you feel.". No, I have every right to attempt to change the future of the US, Your view isn't any more american because it is traditional.

I never said your view was any less American, by all means try and change the future of the U.S., I will try to do the same myself. I never put your constitutional rights in question, I just exercised my first amendment rights.

Japs wrote:No, even blacks can better their situations, there is more help for college and high school scholarships out there availible for minorities than whites.

So yeah this is pretty much retarded. The single largest factor in determining a person's ability to become successful is socio-economic place. Even disregarding racism (like a few more scholarships compensate for that...) it is far harder for a poor person in the US to achieve a relatively high position than it is for a rich person. That's a well documented fact.

To say "Everybody in teh USA has the chance to make something of himself" is an incredibly stupid statement that shows some pretty big ignorance.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Japs wrote:No, even blacks can better their situations, there is more help for college and high school scholarships out there availible for minorities than whites.

So yeah this is pretty much retarded. The single largest factor in determining a person's ability to become successful is socio-economic place. Even disregarding racism (like a few more scholarships compensate for that...) it is far harder for a poor person in the US to achieve a relatively high position than it is for a rich person. That's a well documented fact.

To say "Everybody in teh USA has the chance to make something of himself" is an incredibly stupid statement that shows some pretty big ignorance.

Gotta disagree with you there, buddy. In the usa you have a better chance and having a better life. Sure, you won't become a Rockefeller or any other rich family, but you can live in comfort, i.e own a house or land. Another thing is that racism is socio-economics. There hand in hand. Read up on some social problems that America has to deal with and you'll find that its the same thing