OT Electoral Politics

Who has your vote?

  • Don the Con (R)

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • Slo Joe (D)

    Votes: 15 53.6%
  • Green Party (I)

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Not voting (L)

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • Total voters
    28
  • This poll will close: .

FiliUTEP

MI Hall of Famer
Feb 1, 2010
2,127
708
113
Kanye West.

I hear he is already making a dent. He probably wont win but I like his chances for 2024. But I think Candace Owen's is running 2024 and I like her.
 

JCorona

MI Miner Maniac
Jun 15, 2014
6,584
6,211
113
Kanye West.

I hear he is already making a dent. He probably wont win but I like his chances for 2024. But I think Candace Owen's is running 2024 and I like her.
Kanye will never be president of the United States of America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TxRdKiller

minermx07

MI Regular
Sep 6, 2009
1,322
1,085
113
Kanye West.

I hear he is already making a dent. He probably wont win but I like his chances for 2024. But I think Candace Owen's is running 2024 and I like her.
You really think this nation would elect a mentally ill narcissist with no experience or knowledge of the issues as President?

I mean come on? Can you imagine how this nation would look like if a once in a century crisis happened and the President was tweeting some crazy stuff instead of handling the issues?
 

utep2step

MI Miner Maniac
Jul 10, 2001
14,672
3,569
113
Did you think Trump would be?
I was surprised, but the history was there. The conditions from post reconstruction and the last twenty five years are similar. Highly charged and politicized county, not to mention a civil war, industrial revolution came faster than the country could keep up socially, and deep hatred for immigrants by nationalists (Watch the "Gangs of New York". It captures the hatred well, IMO because there is a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism).
 
  • Like
Reactions: EP Maximus

Dmanminer

MI Regular
Dec 7, 2016
1,127
1,168
113
And I think it’s still a valid process. Why should New York and California be responsible for electing a president? And the other 48 states not really have a say.
Exactly, why can’t the people who keep saying Hillary won the popular vote understand or comprehend. I’m not as well educated as a lot of the posters here, but even I can understand why our government is set up like this.
 

develman

MI Hall of Famer
Jun 27, 2001
2,395
1,502
113
If you looked at where Hillary got her votes it was mainly along both coast. This is exactly why the founding fathers set up the electoral college.
The electoral college was set up to appease southern states(slavery).

"At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."
 

FeralFelidae

MI Miner Maniac
Sep 1, 2003
6,262
1,511
113
The electoral college was set up to appease southern states(slavery).

"At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."
The three-fifths compromise no longer applies for representation in Congress or for the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is apportioned as it is for the same reason that Wyoming and New York both get two senators apiece.
 

develman

MI Hall of Famer
Jun 27, 2001
2,395
1,502
113
The three-fifths compromise no longer applies for representation in Congress or for the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is apportioned as it is for the same reason that Wyoming and New York both get two senators apiece.
Did I say it did?
 

FeralFelidae

MI Miner Maniac
Sep 1, 2003
6,262
1,511
113
Did I say it did?
The three-fifths compromise and the Electoral College are two different things. One influenced the other, but they are distinct, and one is no longer in play, but the other is. Your quote seemed to conflate the two.

Each state gets two senators so that the populous states can't impose their will unchecked on the less populous states. Checks and balances. The apportionment of the Electoral College mirrors that of Congress (except for Washington D.C. via the 23rd Amendment).
 

develman

MI Hall of Famer
Jun 27, 2001
2,395
1,502
113
The three-fifths compromise and the Electoral College are two different things. One influenced the other, but they are distinct, and one is no longer in play, but the other is. Your quote seemed to conflate the two.

Each state gets two senators so that the populous states can't impose their will unchecked on the less populous states. Checks and balances. The apportionment of the Electoral College mirrors that of Congress (except for Washington D.C. via the 23rd Amendment).
My point is slavery(ie racism) played a party in the creation of the Electoral College.
 

FeralFelidae

MI Miner Maniac
Sep 1, 2003
6,262
1,511
113
My point is slavery(ie racism) played a party in the creation of the Electoral College.
The entire Constitution was a result of compromises. The three-fifths compromise gave slave states a greater representation not only in the Electoral College but also in the House of Representatives. By your reasoning, slavery played an equal part in the creation of the House of Representatives as to the Electoral College.

No, the Electoral College and the House of Representatives are institutions distinct from the three-fifths compromise. The three-fifths compromise just granted the slave states greater representation in those institutions. But the three-fifths compromise is no longer a governing force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Autograph Boy

MinerManiac

MI Hall of Famer
Jun 28, 2001
2,437
1,777
113
And I think it’s still a valid process. Why should New York and California be responsible for electing a president? And the other 48 states not really have a say.
Why should Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia be responsible for electing a president, with the rest of the country having no say? Without an electoral college the vote of a resident of Wyoming holds just as much sway as the vote of a resident of California. With the electoral college the votes of the majority of Americans mean absolutely nothing.

I've voted in every presidential election since 1988 (I was 17 in 1984), and my vote has always only been symbolic. I've only lived in solid red Texas (1988, 2004 - 2016 elections) or solid blue California (1992 - 2000 elections). Like every resident of a solid blue or red state my vote meant absolutely nothing, as the democratic (CA) or republican (TX) candidate easily won the state and took all of the state's electoral votes. Honestly, other than a feeling of performing their civic duty, what incentive do the voters in non-swing states have for voting for President? I really, really hope that the forecasts I see that Texas will become a swing state really prove true, as I would love for my vote to finally mean something concrete. Of course, if there were no electoral college, it always would have.

If I were king for a day, the following are the three changes I would make to the way we nominate and elect Presidents:
- Replace the electoral college with the popular vote
- Remove the option of voting for a straight party ticket. Every voter should have to look at the names of every candidate before casting a vote
- Change the primary/caucus system for nominating presidential candidates. Voters in early primaries often have an incredibly large (maybe too large) pool of candidates to choose from. Voters in later primaries, if their lucky, might have two viable candidates to choose from, but more often each party's nominee is already selected by that time.

Of course there isn't enough momentum to enact any of the above changes, so we're stuck with this stupid system we have for the foreseeable future.
 

NoNCAAWinsSince1992

MI Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2019
3,085
2,923
113
Why should Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia be responsible for electing a president, with the rest of the country having no say? Without an electoral college the vote of a resident of Wyoming holds just as much sway as the vote of a resident of California. With the electoral college the votes of the majority of Americans mean absolutely nothing.

I've voted in every presidential election since 1988 (I was 17 in 1984), and my vote has always only been symbolic. I've only lived in solid red Texas (1988, 2004 - 2016 elections) or solid blue California (1992 - 2000 elections). Like every resident of a solid blue or red state my vote meant absolutely nothing, as the democratic (CA) or republican (TX) candidate easily won the state and took all of the state's electoral votes. Honestly, other than a feeling of performing their civic duty, what incentive do the voters in non-swing states have for voting for President? I really, really hope that the forecasts I see that Texas will become a swing state really prove true, as I would love for my vote to finally mean something concrete. Of course, if there were no electoral college, it always would have.

If I were king for a day, the following are the three changes I would make to the way we nominate and elect Presidents:
- Replace the electoral college with the popular vote
- Remove the option of voting for a straight party ticket. Every voter should have to look at the names of every candidate before casting a vote
- Change the primary/caucus system for nominating presidential candidates. Voters in early primaries often have an incredibly large (maybe too large) pool of candidates to choose from. Voters in later primaries, if their lucky, might have two viable candidates to choose from, but more often each party's nominee is already selected by that time.

Of course there isn't enough momentum to enact any of the above changes, so we're stuck with this stupid system we have for the foreseeable future.
Fair points and I don’t disagree. There really is no perfect way to decide. I just don’t think it’s right for California to have more power than North Dakota. California has roughly 50x the population of North Dakota and we’re all in the United States. Would you like it if UNT had 50x the power of UTEP in CUSA matters? Would the SEC give 50x more voting power to Kentucky over Vanderbilt? Should a guy who has worked 50 more years longer at your job have 50x more say on work matters?
 

MinerManiac

MI Hall of Famer
Jun 28, 2001
2,437
1,777
113
Fair points and I don’t disagree. There really is no perfect way to decide. I just don’t think it’s right for California to have more power than North Dakota. California has roughly 50x the population of North Dakota and we’re all in the United States. Would you like it if UNT had 50x the power of UTEP in CUSA matters? Would the SEC give 50x more voting power to Kentucky over Vanderbilt? Should a guy who has worked 50 more years longer at your job have 50x more say on work matters?
You're thinking of CA and ND as homogonous entities. I am not. Having lived in CA I can tell you that there are a lot of conservatives that live in the state. About one-third of the people who voted in the state in 2016 (literally millions of Californians) voted for Donald Trump. Do you believe that they think that the 55 electoral votes that went to Hilary Clinton reflect a significant influence that they as Californians have on a presidential election? Now less than a third of North Dakota voters voted for Clinton in 2016, but do you believe that they're happy that all three of their electoral votes went to Trump? I don't. My bet is that every one of those individuals wished that their votes actually meant something. Honestly, there is no reason, other than a sense of civic duty, for a voter in either of these states to make the effort to go to the polls this November. Joe Biden will take all 55 electoral votes in CA, Donald Trump all 3 electoral votes in ND, no matter whom the individual plans on voting for. How is this a more fair system? Under a popular vote, every individual's vote in the entire country actually means something. Under the electoral college, only the votes of those individuals in the swing states actually mean something. Unless you consider each state a homogenous entity, rather than a collection of individuals, how is the electoral college a better system?
 

NoNCAAWinsSince1992

MI Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2019
3,085
2,923
113
Under a popular vote, every individual's vote in the entire country actually means something. Under the electoral college, only the votes of those individuals in the swing states actually mean something. Unless you consider each state a homogenous entity, rather than a collection of individuals, how is the electoral college a better system?
I think both systems have flaws. I just think the EC is a little more fair, though it does discount the examples you gave. That’s just the way things are. Life is not fair and in most cases, we don’t get to have our voice heard on many subjects.

With a popular vote, don’t you think it would be easier to manipulate the votes? A rich person could pay people to vote a certain way since those votes actually “matter” now. Do you think every eligible person is even “qualified” to vote? Some people will vote for the “hottest” candidate, or the “whitest”, etc. Should their vote count as much as a person who has done their due diligence on who they’re voting for?

Have you seen these dumbass kids lately? Should a person who eats tide pods and steals sneakers during a riot count as much as yours does? Do you really want that type of person to have the same clout as you?
 

STexMiner

MI Hall of Famer
Feb 15, 2004
3,613
604
113
I think both systems have flaws. I just think the EC is a little more fair, though it does discount the examples you gave. That’s just the way things are. Life is not fair and in most cases, we don’t get to have our voice heard on many subjects.

With a popular vote, don’t you think it would be easier to manipulate the votes? A rich person could pay people to vote a certain way since those votes actually “matter” now. Do you think every eligible person is even “qualified” to vote? Some people will vote for the “hottest” candidate, or the “whitest”, etc. Should their vote count as much as a person who has done their due diligence on who they’re voting for?

Have you seen these dumbass kids lately? Should a person who eats tide pods and steals sneakers during a riot count as much as yours does? Do you really want that type of person to have the same clout as you?
How exactly is it more fair? If it's so fair, why is electing the President the only election resolved by a college system? Is it fair that I can win 11 states by 1 vote, receive exactly zero votes in the other 39, and still be named the leader of the free world?

Whether it came about due to slavery, some attempt at federalism, issues with 18th century logistics, or to prevent the unwashed masses from electing some snake oil salesman demagogue (how'd that work out?), it's inherently anti-democratic and elitist. The only fair system is one person, one vote - the way we determine every other local, state, and federal election.
 

develman

MI Hall of Famer
Jun 27, 2001
2,395
1,502
113
I think both systems have flaws. I just think the EC is a little more fair, though it does discount the examples you gave. That’s just the way things are. Life is not fair and in most cases, we don’t get to have our voice heard on many subjects.

With a popular vote, don’t you think it would be easier to manipulate the votes? A rich person could pay people to vote a certain way since those votes actually “matter” now. Do you think every eligible person is even “qualified” to vote? Some people will vote for the “hottest” candidate, or the “whitest”, etc. Should their vote count as much as a person who has done their due diligence on who they’re voting for?

Have you seen these dumbass kids lately? Should a person who eats tide pods and steals sneakers during a riot count as much as yours does? Do you really want that type of person to have the same clout as you?
Very elitist of you. You sound like James Madison arguing for the 3/5ths compromise.
 

MinerManiac

MI Hall of Famer
Jun 28, 2001
2,437
1,777
113
I think both systems have flaws. I just think the EC is a little more fair, though it does discount the examples you gave. That’s just the way things are. Life is not fair and in most cases, we don’t get to have our voice heard on many subjects.

With a popular vote, don’t you think it would be easier to manipulate the votes? A rich person could pay people to vote a certain way since those votes actually “matter” now. Do you think every eligible person is even “qualified” to vote? Some people will vote for the “hottest” candidate, or the “whitest”, etc. Should their vote count as much as a person who has done their due diligence on who they’re voting for?

Have you seen these dumbass kids lately? Should a person who eats tide pods and steals sneakers during a riot count as much as yours does? Do you really want that type of person to have the same clout as you?
Currently in the swing states every vote counts. Have you ever heard of rich people in, say, Florida paying people to vote a certain way? As far as the other stuff, this is a democracy. Every eligible person can vote, be they Nobel Prize winners or complete idiots. This is fine, as the country is made up of everything from Nobel Prize winners to complete idiots, and they should all get a say.
 

minermx07

MI Regular
Sep 6, 2009
1,322
1,085
113
Conservatives like the Electoral College because it favors them. It swung 2/5 last elections overturning the popular vote. It’s a happenstance, a matter of luck.

But like denying statehood to DC, we have a political party willing to abandon the principle of “one man one vote”, so they can win. It’s a shame.
 

NoNCAAWinsSince1992

MI Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2019
3,085
2,923
113
Conservatives like the Electoral College because it favors them. It swung 2/5 last elections overturning the popular vote. It’s a happenstance, a matter of luck.

But like denying statehood to DC, we have a political party willing to abandon the principle of “one man one vote”, so they can win. It’s a shame.
I am not conservative and if Biden wins via the EC this fall, I won’t have any issues with it.
 

JCorona

MI Miner Maniac
Jun 15, 2014
6,584
6,211
113
Do you think there will be interference from other countries in the election?
 

MinerManiac

MI Hall of Famer
Jun 28, 2001
2,437
1,777
113
Conservatives like the Electoral College because it favors them. It swung 2/5 last elections overturning the popular vote. It’s a happenstance, a matter of luck.

But like denying statehood to DC, we have a political party willing to abandon the principle of “one man one vote”, so they can win. It’s a shame.
In 2000 Bush famously beat Gore by winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. While this has happened a few times in history, it hadn't at the time happened in a while, and I was hoping that having one of the two major parties lose a presidential election that way would spur at least changes to the electoral college, if not eliminating it altogether. I was, of course, wrong.

Four years later it was obvious that Bush was going to win the popular vote, but Ohio was too close to call. If Kerry had won Ohio he would have won the electoral vote, in a reversal of four years earlier. I was hoping that Kerry would win, hoping that if each party had been screwed in recent memory it would have spurred the change that I was looking for. Unfortunately Bush narrowly took Ohio and the electoral vote. I would love to abolish the electoral college, but I'm afraid that it will never happen.
 

minermx07

MI Regular
Sep 6, 2009
1,322
1,085
113
Do you think there will be interference from other countries in the election?
Yes Russia will try to help Trump win. China will try to help Biden win. Biden like Gore will reject Chinese interference in the election. Trump will I invite Russian interference in the election as he did last time.
 

JCorona

MI Miner Maniac
Jun 15, 2014
6,584
6,211
113
Yes Russia will try to help Trump win. China will try to help Biden win. Biden like Gore will reject Chinese interference in the election. Trump will I invite Russian interference in the election as he did last time.
IMO China and Russia will do what they can to keep Trump President. Another four years of this will strengthen those countries while ours continues to burn itself.
 

Latest posts