1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

As a union of states, it makes perfect sense to me that each state should have equal power in electing the ruler of the union.  Otherwise a small state would have much less say than a larger one.

 

It seems perfectly democratic to me.

As a consequence the people in the populous states have much less say than the people in a less populous state.

 

Democratic much?

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

As a union of states, it makes perfect sense to me that each state should have equal power in electing the ruler of the union.  Otherwise a small state would have much less say than a larger one.

 

It seems perfectly democratic to me.

Do some research on the electoral college.  It's an antiquated system that needs to be abolished. 

 

So Montana, which has more cows than people, has the same power to elect a leader as California.  Which is the 7th largest economy in the world.  Doesn't make sense.  It's suppression of votes.  Should be a popular vote.  Ditch the EC.  Sadly, it's one of the tools the GOP loves so they can cheat.

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As a consequence the people in the populous states have much less say than the people in a less populous state.

How so?

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

  Mostly white people who don't want to see people of color take over "their" country.

come on jeff.

 

i may not agree with things you say but you put forth very reasonable points a lot of time. this one you are putting it too simply. this goes deep into a human tribal sort of thing. hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and cultural development all rapidly changed in the course of what 100 years. for so long the majority of our species lived among *their* own. now all of a sudden this huge mix and integration. a complex subject with many differing angles and points. 

 

will you talk that freely about say japan ? or even thailand ? 

 

is japan racist in regards to their view on immigration and outsiders ? how about thailand ? 

 

its not so simple can we agree on that ? 

3 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

So Montana, which has more cows than people, has the same power to elect a leader as California.

One state has the same power as another.   What's the problem with that?

 

Different states have very different concerns.  If it was done on the popular vote, why would any candidate care about Montana?  They would just court California and ignore Montana's issues.  Candidates would focus purely on a handful of the largest states and small states would be left to fester.  Hence they have the same power in order to be an equal part of the union.

6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

How so?

Just follow your own reasoning.

6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

One state has the same power as another.   What's the problem with that?

 

Different states have very different concerns.  If it was done on the popular vote, why would any candidate care about Montana?  They would just court California and ignore Montana's issues.  Candidates would focus purely on a handful of the largest states and small states would be left to fester.  Hence they have the same power in order to be an equal part of the union.

Worth a read.  Quite good.  It's a big problem that needs to be addressed.  Along with the senate.  Wyoming has 600,000 people, California has 40 million.  And each has 2 senators?  Not fair.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

Worth a read.  Quite good.  It's a big problem that needs to be addressed.  Along with the senate.  Wyoming has 600,000 people, California has 40 million.  And each has 2 senators?  Not fair.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/

and what's the deal with two Dakota's 

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Just follow your own reasoning.

They all have the same power within their state, then each state all has the same power within the union.  That's perfectly fair.

10 minutes ago, mr mr said:

come on jeff.

 

i may not agree with things you say but you put forth very reasonable points a lot of time. this one you are putting it too simply. this goes deep into a human tribal sort of thing. hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and cultural development all rapidly changed in the course of what 100 years. for so long the majority of our species lived among *their* own. now all of a sudden this huge mix and integration. a complex subject with many differing angles and points. 

 

will you talk that freely about say japan ? or even thailand ? 

 

is japan racist in regards to their view on immigration and outsiders ? how about thailand ? 

 

its not so simple can we agree on that ? 

Very well put!  It's complicated.  But in the end, comes down to racism.  Look at Trump supporters.  Primarily white.  Obama's?  Primarily black. 

 

Japan is SUPER racist!  Been there many times.  Same with Thailand.  If it wasn't, we'd be allowed to become citizens, get permanent residency, own homes, start bank accounts easily.  But we can't.  Why?  They don't like outsiders.  Never have.

 

P.S. I'm partially a person of color.  Not enough to notice at first glance, but my father was 50% of color.  So I take these things seriously.

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

and what's the deal with two Dakota's 

Or American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Washington DC.  Should they become states?  It's an interesting debate.

17 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

They all have the same power within their state, then each state all has the same power within the union.  That's perfectly fair.

And as a consequence the people in the more populous states have less power in the union. You can't have it both ways.

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

the people in the more populous states have less power in the union

Do you mean they don't the have extra power you think they should have because there are more of them, and that's somehow not fair?

 

I don't see how they have less power.

Just now, BangkokReady said:

Do you mean they don't the have extra power you think they should have because there are more of them, and that's somehow not fair?

 

I don't see how they have less power.

its called proportional representation. One man one vote. A small number of people collectively having the same power as a large number of people is grossly unfair and undemocratic. In the UK the boundaries of constituencies, the area that one member of parliament represents, are constantly under review, regularly changing to ensure that each MP has roughly the same number of constituents. Its the democratic way.

3 minutes ago, polpott said:

its called proportional representation. One man one vote. A small number of people collectively having the same power as a large number of people is grossly unfair and undemocratic. In the UK the boundaries of constituencies, the area that one member of parliament represents, are constantly under review, regularly changing to ensure that each MP has roughly the same number of constituents. Its the democratic way.

I guess once they shift all the state lines to ensure that all states have roughly the same number of people, the popular vote will make more sense.

They dont need to do that. The number of citizens a state has should be proportional to the number of senators that state returns. Simple. If the population of a state changes radically, adjust the number of senators that state returns. There is no real logic behind the senate having exactly 100 senators. I f there were 120 or 90 senators it would function exactly the same.

 

 

3 hours ago, mr mr said:

can you imagine if the don actually wins ? o man the entertainment it will provide will be glorious. a few posters on here will look rather silly. 

And the ???? tears will be falling like this latest monsoon sweeping the country. 

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Trump has repeatedly claimed without evidence

That is his modus operandi 

40 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Do you mean they don't the have extra power you think they should have because there are more of them, and that's somehow not fair?

 

I don't see how they have less power.

Imo the president, the executive, should be elected based on popular vote. Congress should stay as it is, albeit the division of power and control congress has on executive should be improved and better defined. Senate should have it s power reduced, and should have more of a controlling function. Should be state based as it is now, but more populous states should have a bigger say. But in order to prevent the smaller states to be overshadowed, there should be a middle ground there.

 

Elections should be held once every 4 years, campaigning time should be limited, outside donations should be capped.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Imo the president, the executive, should be elected based on popular vote. Congress should stay as it is, albeit the division of power and control congress has on executive should be improved and better defined. Senate should have it s power reduced, and should have more of a controlling function.

Speaking of which, is there such a thing as independent senators in the USA? In Australia, they quite often hold the balance of power. But then, getting elected as a senator depends less on how much money one has behind them, more on whether their policies strike a chord with the electorate.

2 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Do you mean they don't the have extra power you think they should have because there are more of them, and that's somehow not fair?

 

I don't see how they have less power.

If you think you should have equal power for your vote regardless of which state you live in, then clearly electoral college negates that. I have no idea where earlier crazy idea that each state has one vote came from. Simple wrong. Read the Constitution.

Electors based on number of representatives and 2 senators per state. Is it equal?

Wyoming has 550,000 population: 2 senators and 1 representative: 3 votes in EC. Works out to 1 EC vote per 183,000 people.

California has 39.7 million people: 2 senators and 52 representatives. Works out to 1 EC vote per 735,000 people.

Do the division and 1 vote in Wyoming is worth 4 in California.

Do you now understand why a California voter has far less power/influence than one in Wyoming?

North (800,000) and South Dakota (858,000), Montana (960,000) similar tho not as extreme examples of negation of "my vote should be as powerful as yours"

Republicans have only won popular vote once in last 5 presidential elections (Bush-Kerry)

 

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

And on the off chance that he loses? Will not a few of his supporters also look silly? Maybe even including you?

Could be a massive  die off of Cult members 

Just now, Ireland32 said:

Could be a massive  die off of Cult members 

Jonestown 2.

8 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Why would they look silly?  Sad times when supposedly smart people want a liar and criminal for their leader. 

It’s not the votes of the smart people we worry about 

A record early vote eh? Probably indicates how important this election is. Whichever way it goes I hope it does so decisively. Like it or not the condition of the USA is important on the world stage and if havoc was the result then probably many members here would suffer, me included, as our pensions would likely suffer (as well as Americans in general). Although my company pension was originally UK it is now owned/ governed by an American company and although I might be accused of being selfish my feelings are of practical nature and stability. 

11 hours ago, mr mr said:

can you imagine if the don actually wins ? o man the entertainment it will provide will be glorious. a few posters on here will look rather silly. 

Unlikely, but could happen given the most recent polls.

11 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

The only reason any voter would look silly is if they voted for the current liar and great divider of our nation.  If the US is to heal, Trump has to go.  In the infamous words of General Kelly, who guaranteed knows Trump better than anyone on this forum:

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/521507-john-kelly-called-trump-the-most-flawed-person-hes-ever-met-report

 

Former White House chief of staff, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, has said that President Trump “is the most flawed person” he’s ever known, CNN reported.

 

"The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me. The dishonesty, the transactional nature of every relationship, though it's more pathetic than anything else. He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life," Kelly has told friends, the outlet reported.

BS.

10 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

As a union of states, it makes perfect sense to me that each state should have equal power in electing the ruler of the union.  Otherwise a small state would have much less say than a larger one.

 

It seems perfectly democratic to me.

Larger by land area, or by population? It's not democratic if a state with less population carries the same clout as a state with a bigger population. That's not democracy, that's a clusterf##k.

How does it make perfect sense to you?

Nigel Farage places eye-watering bet on Donald Trump to win US election 2020

NIGEL FARAGE has put a £10,000 bet for Donald Trump to win the US election next Tuesday as he attacked Michael Cohen for betting on Joe Biden.

By Claire Anderson

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1354125/nigel-farage-latest-donald-trump-news-us-elections-2020-joe-biden-VN

when pollsters cal up voters ,voters never say they will vote for trump they give them red herrings so polls are skewed by lieing voters about their intentions