IGX

It's bullshit, but will not be replaced by any amendment. Too many sacred cows to be s-l-a-u-g-h-t-e-r-e-d.

But here's what is total 100% bullshit and should be eliminated...winner take all vote apportionment. It basically eliminates the democratic voice of about 90% of the country. I think we can all agree on this.

If you are a right-leaning dude in California, you deserve to have the repub come west and try to stroke you to convergence. Similarly for the one leftie in Wyoming.

I've been sampling by Pumpkin Ale collection, and it has unleashed the wisdom that reading most of your posts has suppressed.

Go home you're drunk.

It must stay put because I constantly refer to it as the "Electrical College" and that makes me giggle because I'm a child.

I'm not a fan of the idea that all of the electoral votes in a state should go to the national popular vote winner, but that's a better system than the current winner take all used by most states.

There should be a way to make the popular vote count for something without having it count for everything.

Ronald RayGun wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:37 am It must stay put because I constantly refer to it as the "Electrical College" and that makes me giggle because I'm a child.

LOL

newguy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:22 pm There should be a way to make the popular vote count for something without having it count for everything.

In the current political climate, popular vote should matter LESS not more.

newguy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:22 pm There should be a way to make the popular vote count for something without having it count for everything.

Allocate the electoral votes proportionally in each state based on how they vote in the state. That way Wyoming voters still get their hugely outsized impact in the voting, but at least every voice is heard.

You could still end up with the loser winning, like in 2016, but not by 3,000,000 votes.

I really think LA and NYC and Boston and CHC and the big cities should decide everything. They're like Switzerland so clean and orderly and well run.

No wait, college towns like Ann Arbor and Austin should rule because they're where the ppl who run the big cities learn how to run things.

No wait again, the faculty of the elite educational institutions should run things because they train the people who run the big cities.

You know what, now that I really think about it the ppl who fund the universities should run things.

Shit this is complicated let's let the heads of Human Resources run things.

How about we let everyone vote and use a method that lets everyone's vote be heard?

Welcome back Benny.

All I know is women shouldn't vote or have any say in politics.

This is both objectively true and also conducive to my preferences.

So I support it.

And every woman I've known who is smarter than me has agreed.

Actually, all women agree with this they're just infuriated men they don't want to have sex with have a say.

Bennyonesix1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:30 am All I know is women shouldn't vote or have any say in politics.

This is both objectively true and also conducive to my preferences.

So I support it.

And every woman I've known who is smarter than me has agreed.

Actually, all women agree with this they're just infuriated men they don't want to have sex with have a say.

Margaret Thatcher is your counter example?

She was a disaster.

Do you get all teary eyed and emotional over the Gipper, too?

I bet when she got drunk she realtalked how women shouldn't vote except for her and maybe 3 others.

Because this is what the smart women I know think and say.

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:03 amHow about we let everyone vote and use a method that lets everyone's vote be heard?

Absolutely not, and that's what got us to this stage. Why can't you see that? Name one functioning organization where everyone has equal say?

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:41 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:03 amHow about we let everyone vote and use a method that lets everyone's vote be heard?

Absolutely not, and that's what got us to this stage. Why can't you see that?

Because it is not true. A Democrat's vote in Alabama is as meaningless as a Republican's vote in California in the Prez race. There are only a few states that matter. Why should an Ohioan's vote matter more? It does.

Name one functioning organization where everyone has equal say?

How did the Repub primaries work in 2016?

What does "having a say" mean?

johno wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:37 pm What does "having a say" mean?

For the sake of simple math, assume everyone in the entire country can and will vote.

There are 538 votes in the electoral college. Assume now they can be fractional.

If I live in Wyoming with 3 electoral votes for the state and 580,000 people, my vote at the national level would be 3/580,000th of the total.

If in California, it'd be 55/40,000,000th of the total.

My fraction of the total would be smaller because I live in California, but it'd still be there. I would have a voice.

With winner-take-all electoral vote allocating, I might as well stay at home if a Dem in Wyoming or Repub in California (but for the state races).