Calolfornia

[Jason]

On 11/3/2017 at 10:23 AM, RallyMo said:

Lots of cola makes people conservative?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll just see myself out the door.

You can beat 3 liters for a $1

[UndertheHalo]

So where all the people live and all the money is made, that’s the area that is over represented ? Am I understanding that right floplag ?

I think the rural conservatives are represented just fine in this country.  The electoral college already massively guarantees their over representation and GOP helps even more with their bullshit gerrymandering and their diligent work to make sure poor people can’t vote.  Sorry that doesn’t work out for you in California where we’ve made gerrymandering almost impossible.  Kansas is waiting if you think it sucks here so much. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Lhalo]

Oh it's only the GOP that gerrymanders. Thanks for that nugget of info.

[RallyMo]

38 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Why should an urban person's vote be worth less than a rural person's vote? 

That's a great question.

Also, the electoral college is absolute bullcrap in 2017, as best as I can tell.

[UndertheHalo]

6 minutes ago, LHalo said:

Oh it's only the GOP that gerrymanders. Thanks for that nugget of info.

They’re the ones that have enshrined as law.  Are you serious ?   Far, far more then the democrats. 

[mtangelsfan]

19 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

So where all the people live and all the money is made, that’s the area that is over represented ? Am I understanding that right floplag ?

I think the rural conservatives are represented just fine in this country.  The electoral college already massively guarantees their over representation and GOP helps even more with their bullshit gerrymandering and their diligent work to make sure poor people can’t vote.  Sorry that doesn’t work out for you in California where we’ve made gerrymandering almost impossible.  Kansas is waiting if you think it sucks here so much. 

I love it when the libs use the "don't love it, then leave" argument.  

 

[RallyMo]

2 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I love it when the libs use the "don't love it, then leave" argument.  

 

You have to especially love it in this case, because it's just about the only legitimately objectionable thing that he wrote.

[floplag]

10 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

So where all the people live and all the money is made, that’s the area that is over represented ? Am I understanding that right floplag ?

I think the rural conservatives are represented just fine in this country.  The electoral college already massively guarantees their over representation and GOP helps even more with their bullshit gerrymandering and their diligent work to make sure poor people can’t vote.  Sorry that doesn’t work out for you in California where we’ve made gerrymandering almost impossible.  Kansas is waiting if you think it sucks here so much. 

This isnt partisan, i said nothing about one party or the other im neither pro rep or dem, i think both are asinine trainwrecks right now and would prefer to vote for deex nutz.   Both parties have failed us in recent years to staggering levels and are less intellectual than your average kindergarten class at this point. 

Your entire post reaks of petty bullshit assumptions that are not accurate.  I am not pro red or blue. 

My point is very simple, im fine with the EC, im fine with districts, im fine with the entire process save for the fact that I simply think its one failure is in how most states cast as blocks.   To me this overrides the minority votes regardless of color that should be considered.   CAs red voters should have counted just as Tex blue.  It goes both ways.   

I will say that your assertion that rural conservatives are just fine or over represented is absurd though, not when CA alone can virtually override the entire SW or MW per EC votes.    That is not "over-represented" by any logical means, quite the contrary all butthurt aside. 

[mtangelsfan]

5 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

You have to especially love it in this case, because it's just about the only legitimately objectionable thing that he wrote.

In your opinion.

[UndertheHalo]

Yea because there’s more people here.  Who gives a shit about the geography.

[UndertheHalo]

12 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

You have to especially love it in this case, because it's just about the only legitimately objectionable thing that he wrote.

Is it really ? I hear the conservatives yelling about “if you dont like it leave !!” all the time.  

[Adam]

The bigger problem I have is that governmental power is inverted. The Feds wield too much power over the States, States over counties, counties over cities, etc. I think morally, it would be better if that power flowchart went the other way. 

[floplag]

11 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Yea because there’s more people here.  Who gives a shit about the geography.

So mob rule, not rule of law... be very careful what you ask for.  The majority is certainly not always right, something we in this state no better than most. 

Answer me this, what is so bad about splitting the votes so that all count?   Its incredibly simple, the total vote tally doesnt change, you just split the states votes based on district and they cast those votes for each qualified candidate instead of allocating the minority blocks as part of that 55 to one delegate effectively saying the rest dont count and overriding them.  The color doesnt matter.  You split CAs 55 into its corresponding blocks of red/blue/green/whatever and let the most accurate vote possible apply.  Same in Tex, NY, every state.     

How is this a bad thing that somehow makes me a radical redneck Kansas wannabee to you?  

[red321]

8 minutes ago, floplag said:

So mob rule, not rule of law... be very careful what you ask for.  The majority is certainly not always right, something we in this state no better than most. 

Answer me this, what is so bad about splitting the votes so that all count?   Its incredibly simple, the total vote tally doesnt change, you just split the states votes based on district and they cast those votes for each qualified candidate instead of allocating the minority blocks as part of that 55 to one delegate effectively saying the rest dont count and overriding them.  The color doesnt matter.  You split CAs 55 into its corresponding blocks of red/blue/green/whatever and let the most accurate vote possible apply.  Same in Tex, NY, every state.     

How is this a bad thing that somehow makes me a radical redneck Kansas wannabee to you?  

How does splitting votes, make them all count? In essence it goes back to you want someone elses vote to count for more than another persons.

If you truly wanted everyone's vote to count you would advocate getting rid of the electoral college and having direct elections for president.

[UndertheHalo]

How is it that you have this nuanced view of how the votes are distributed from a single state but have no issue with the idea that 10x the number of people have the same voting power as the smaller group.  

You say my opinion “reeks of petty bullshit”.  Jesus Christ.  You’re pretty selective with your voting beefs.

Edited November 6, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[well_red]

californian votes already count the least in the presidential election due to the electoral college (map below).  if we didn't assign EC as a whole state block then it is safe to say the situation would be exacerbated even further, unless all state agreed to do the same.  I remember seeing an article that showed if this were the case in 2016, clinton would have gotten 30 more electoral college votes and neither would have hit the 270 threshold for election.

[floplag]

18 minutes ago, red321 said:

How does splitting votes, make them all count? In essence it goes back to you want someone elses vote to count for more than another persons.

If you truly wanted everyone's vote to count you would advocate getting rid of the electoral college and having direct elections for president.

I am in no way suggesting any areas votes would count more, only that they should be counted, that is all.  In this case much of the rural districts of California were rendered less than moot.  Not only were they not counted, they were literally overridden.  If anything the exact opposite was the reality in that one side voted for the other by proxy.  You are the one championing your view to matter more in this case case, not me.

The whole point of the EC is to prevent mob rule and let any factions speak for the entire nation.   In that sense the EC works brilliantly.  Without it a handful of cities would literally control the nation today rendering all over views irrelevant.  This cant be allowed as it would eventually become a very bad thing.  It has in my view only this one flaw it that it masks minority voting blocks at the state level.  Whether its red or blue or green etc... doesnt matter, the logic is the same, each should be counted on its own merit.     Again, NOT partisan.  I would feel the same regardless of color, have i said that enough yet?   

[well_red]

17 minutes ago, floplag said:

The whole point of the EC is to prevent mob rule and let any factions speak for the entire nation.   In that sense the EC works brilliantly.  Without it a handful of cities would literally control the nation today rendering all over views irrelevant.    

Really don't buy this argument, as it is arbitrarily stating the most important "diversity of opinions" etc falls across the rural/urban boundary.  drive up the 110, down the 5, then back up the 405, you're saying there is anything resembling a homogenous "opinion" aggregating across all those cities?  

[UndertheHalo]

There isn’t a perfect solution with our system.  The EC literally makes some people’s votes count more then others.  Look, some rural counties votes aren’t counted in California because whatever the number turns out to be it doesn’t matter.  It’s not going to change the vote overall.  It’s not nearly as gross as what we seen in red states like Texas, where gerrymandering has literally thrown out the votes of large populations like Austin. 

 It’s unfortunate that those areas in California are politically homogenous and conservative.  But again, it really doesn’t matter.  It’s not going to change the overall vote.  On some level in a democracy the majority has to matter.  Again, we do plenty in this country to mitigate that.  Probably too much actually.   What you’re proposing is more of the same EC impact because you prefer that outcome.  

I know you keep saying that it’s not a partisan position but that’s bullshit because the result is partisan.  It’s only going to help one side.  So, I appreciate that your intentions are pure, but practically it doesn’t work out like that.  

Edited November 6, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[floplag]

Just now, well_red said:

Really don't buy this argument, as it is arbitrarily stating the most important "diversity of opinions" etc falls across the rural/urban boundary.  drive up the 110, down the 5, then back up the 405, you're saying there is anything resembling a homogenous "opinion" aggregating across all those cities?  

No, thats not what its saying at all.  It isnt urban/rural or any other divide it just happened to be the easiest example in this case for CA as to how it borke down in the most recent elections, but whatever the dividing lines might be the logic is the same.  its a matter of ensuring that all votes are tallied correctly regardless of demographics.   I think we all know the reality is that they play into it of course, but that really not the issue at hand.

CA has 55 EC votes, we can debate the relative power of them another times as i wont argue they are all equal in that regard and due to migrations etc it needs some adjustments.    But as it stands today in 2016 Clinton got 55 votes from CA in state block, when the reality is that she carried only half the states districts roughly.  if i recall it was something like 29-26.  Popular vote wasnt close we all know that carrying almost double what Trump got. 

Now, it comes down to what matters more, the total popular vote, or the fact that almost half the states districts were in dissent?  Each district or county has its own demographics, economical needs, and all manner of things that may or may not have anything whatever to do with the others.   How is it fair to tell them they dont count under any circumstances?   Or worse to literally change their votes?  How is this just?

This is literally all im saying, that state voting blocks to me dont actually represent the views of all those in a state, especially in CA where a handful of cities hold all the sway in a general majority election.   The EC purpose is to prevent that at a national level, it just doesnt take it far enough to the states.  Split up the 55 into smaller more accurate blocks so that all peoples are fully represented regardless of party, or demographic, or insert whatever other item you wish here... and it would make far more sense in my opinion.  Not all states vote block, I simply think all should split it up accordingly.   

I'm truly not sure why this is so controversial or has garnered the reaction it has.

[floplag]

28 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

There isn’t a perfect solution with our system.  The EC literally makes some people’s votes count more then others.  Look, some rural counties votes aren’t counted in California because whatever the number turns out to be it doesn’t matter.  It’s not going to change the vote overall.  It’s not nearly as gross as what we seen in red states like Texas, where gerrymandering has literally thrown out the votes of large populations like Austin. 

 It’s unfortunate that those areas in California are politically homogenous and conservative.  But again, it really doesn’t matter.  It’s not going to change the overall vote.  On some level in a democracy the majority has to matter.  Again, we do plenty in this country to mitigate that.  Probably too much actually.   What you’re proposing is more of the same EC impact because you prefer that outcome.  

I know you keep saying that it’s not a partisan position but that’s bullshit because the result is partisan.  It’s only going to help one side.  So, I appreciate that your intentions are pure, but practically it doesn’t work out like that.  

How does it only help one side, explain that to me?  I've literally said it should be the same in all states to ensure all counties/districts should have their say regardless of any defining characteristics.  

If you are referring to the current political climate then yes you are likely correct, it would hurt the Dems more than the Reps, but that doesn't change the fairness of it or my opinion of it, if anything it strengthens it as it forces both parties to make an effort to reach out to more of us rather than pandering to their preferred demographics.   

I swear on anything you want me to that my preferred outcome has literally nothing to do with this opinion.  You are wrong there.  You can believe me or not thats up to you but i promise you its not true. 

[Tank]

29 minutes ago, floplag said:

No, thats not what its saying at all.  It isnt urban/rural or any other divide it just happened to be the easiest example in this case for CA as to how it borke down in the most recent elections, but whatever the dividing lines might be the logic is the same.  its a matter of ensuring that all votes are tallied correctly regardless of demographics.   I think we all know the reality is that they play into it of course, but that really not the issue at hand.

CA has 55 EC votes, we can debate the relative power of them another times as i wont argue they are all equal in that regard and due to migrations etc it needs some adjustments.    But as it stands today in 2016 Clinton got 55 votes from CA in state block, when the reality is that she carried only half the states districts roughly.  if i recall it was something like 29-26.  Popular vote wasnt close we all know that carrying almost double what Trump got. 

Now, it comes down to what matters more, the total popular vote, or the fact that almost half the states districts were in dissent?  Each district or county has its own demographics, economical needs, and all manner of things that may or may not have anything whatever to do with the others.   How is it fair to tell them they dont count under any circumstances?   Or worse to literally change their votes?  How is this just?

This is literally all im saying, that state voting blocks to me dont actually represent the views of all those in a state, especially in CA where a handful of cities hold all the sway in a general majority election.   The EC purpose is to prevent that at a national level, it just doesnt take it far enough to the states.  Split up the 55 into smaller more accurate blocks so that all peoples are fully represented regardless of party, or demographic, or insert whatever other item you wish here... and it would make far more sense in my opinion.  Not all states vote block, I simply think all should split it up accordingly.   

I'm truly not sure why this is so controversial or has garnered the reaction it has.

honestly, i think your idea has merit. 

i like the idea of the electoral votes being split up in a state by county or district instead of the winner-take-all format we have now. of our 55 delegates, i don't know how many that works out to per district, but i think it would give a more accurate result of the will of the people for a presidential election. just make sure that the number of votes per district is done fairly, maybe 1 delegate for every 100,000 people in that district (or something similar) so that the votes in imperial county or the mount shasta district count as much as votes in san fran or LA districts.

[well_red]

42 minutes ago, floplag said:

No, thats not what its saying at all.  It isnt urban/rural or any other divide it just happened to be the easiest example in this case for CA as to how it borke down in the most recent elections, but whatever the dividing lines might be the logic is the same.  its a matter of ensuring that all votes are tallied correctly regardless of demographics.   I think we all know the reality is that they play into it of course, but that really not the issue at hand.

CA has 55 EC votes, we can debate the relative power of them another times as i wont argue they are all equal in that regard and due to migrations etc it needs some adjustments.    But as it stands today in 2016 Clinton got 55 votes from CA in state block, when the reality is that she carried only half the states districts roughly.  if i recall it was something like 29-26.  Popular vote wasnt close we all know that carrying almost double what Trump got. 

Now, it comes down to what matters more, the total popular vote, or the fact that almost half the states districts were in dissent?  Each district or county has its own demographics, economical needs, and all manner of things that may or may not have anything whatever to do with the others.   How is it fair to tell them they dont count under any circumstances?   Or worse to literally change their votes?  How is this just?

This is literally all im saying, that state voting blocks to me dont actually represent the views of all those in a state, especially in CA where a handful of cities hold all the sway in a general majority election.   The EC purpose is to prevent that at a national level, it just doesnt take it far enough to the states.  Split up the 55 into smaller more accurate blocks so that all peoples are fully represented regardless of party, or demographic, or insert whatever other item you wish here... and it would make far more sense in my opinion.  Not all states vote block, I simply think all should split it up accordingly.   

I'm truly not sure why this is so controversial or has garnered the reaction it has.

i don't disagree, bulk state voting is absurd.   it just seems you are still drawing an arbitrary line, that it is ok to aggregate votes by district or whatever you want to call it, but at the state level it is too much.  if you have an EC district with ~1M votes, and it comes out 501,000 vs 499,000, that's ok to call that one way or the other, but it's too much when you look at 40M californians together?  Yes, there is a difference, but the same logic applies in both.  At what point does it make sense to aggregate votes and winner take all.  Why not 1 person 1 vote?  

[UndertheHalo]

40 minutes ago, well_red said:

i don't disagree, bulk state voting is absurd.   it just seems you are still drawing an arbitrary line, that it is ok to aggregate votes by district or whatever you want to call it, but at the state level it is too much.  if you have an EC district with ~1M votes, and it comes out 501,000 vs 499,000, that's ok to call that one way or the other, but it's too much when you look at 40M californians together?  Yes, there is a difference, but the same logic applies in both.  At what point does it make sense to aggregate votes and winner take all.  Why not 1 person 1 vote?  

He answered this.  Because it would be “mob rule”

Edited November 6, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

As someone who has lived in both urban and rural America, I see both sides.  There is no perfect, or even really good solution.