Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Also the fact that something like the 2 million vote lead in the popular vote hasn't happened in 140 years.
    So what? The founders were wise to not go by popular vote for the pres.
    Re my post #6

    Do you understand why the popular vote doesn't matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    and finally, the dismantling of the voting rights act and the voter suppression tactics that happened in these states - such as interstate cross-check - which had nothng to do with voter ID since if you had an ID under this purge you'd still be given a provisional ballot which wasn't counted.
    I'm not familiar with this. What are you talking about?
    I know there were some post civil war acts which infringed on the rights of the states in the name of countering the rampant racism at the time that were recently dismantled(I think by a court). Is that what your referring to?
    To serve man.

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    So what? The founders were wise to not go by popular vote for the pres.
    Re my post #6

    Do you understand why the popular vote doesn't matter?
    This could (and probably should) be an entirely separate debate, but the electoral college has long outlived its usefulness and is essentially gerrymandering on a larger scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    They are getting counted by the electoral college by the huge number of electoral votes they count for. 2mil people in California(a small portion of the population) out weigh every single person of my state (assuming they would all to a man vote), they out weigh by an order of 6 or so.
    Actually the reverse is true. The issue is the distribution of electoral votes per eligible voter. Let's use California and Wyoming for example so you can see the problem:

    Wyoming has approximately 447,200 eligible voters (adults age 18+). Wyoming is appropriated 3 EC votes. That's 1 EC vote per 149,067 persons.

    California has approximately 30,024,075 eligible voters. California is appropriated 55 EC votes. That's 1 EC vote per 545,892 persons.

    This means that one Wyoming voter is equivalent to 3.66 California voters. In other words, one California vote is worth less than a Wyoming vote. This should end the discussion here as to why this system is outdated and should be modified or scrapped, but I suspect that until a Republican loses the electoral college vote despite winning the popular vote, this inequality will not go away.

    The larger issue here is that the winner-takes-all systems in the majority of states depresses voter turnout in states that aren't swing states. California Republicans are more apt to just stay home and not vote because they "know" that they will never overcome the Democratic majority--and same goes for Democrats in deeply red states. It's a deeply flawed system that should change but as I mentioned earlier, probably won't anytime soon.

  3. Thanks CowboyX thanked for this post
  4. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    This could (and probably should) be an entirely separate debate, but the electoral college has long outlived its usefulness and is essentially gerrymandering on a larger scale.
    I don't think so.
    Different states have different interests. I know here in my state we wouldn't want California and places that refuse to drill for oil, push their values on us, when our state lives off of oil. We would get out voted every time.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    This means that one Wyoming voter is equivalent to 3.66 California voters. In other words, one California vote is worth less than a Wyoming vote. This should end the discussion here as to why this system is outdated and should be modified or scrapped, but I suspect that until a Republican loses the electoral college vote despite winning the popular vote, this inequality will not go away.
    Yea, well states have issues as well, not just voters. Should we just switch to a system where 3 or 4 or 5 states run the other 45 or so?
    It's not just about individual votes, those get represented in the house. Or will you also complain that the senate has outlived it's usefulness?
    After all, why do the 50million people in California get 2 votes, and the 2 mill in my state also get 2 whole votes??? MADNESS! OUTDATED!!

    Hardly.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    The larger issue here is that the winner-takes-all systems in the majority of states depresses voter turnout in states that aren't swing states. California Republicans are more apt to just stay home and not vote because they "know" that they will never overcome the Democratic majority--and same goes for Democrats in deeply red states. It's a deeply flawed system that should change but as I mentioned earlier, probably won't anytime soon.
    Well I agree with the voter turn out issue but I believe that the states have a stake in this for a reason. I don't think your POV identifies that reason or seeks to address it with the proposed changes. Instead it is assumed to be outdated and unimportant.. which is fine if your state is in the majority.
    you think voter turn out is depressed, wait till we have a single party system because 1 party has all the majority popular vote over the whole nation based on the needs and desires of just a handful of states.
    To serve man.

  5. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    I don't think so.
    Different states have different interests. I know here in my state we wouldn't want California and places that refuse to drill for oil, push their values on us, when our state lives off of oil. We would get out voted every time.
    ...which is why you have Senators and Representatives to represent you on those matters on a state level. The Electoral College's only function is to elect the President.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Yea, well states have issues as well, not just voters. Should we just switch to a system where 3 or 4 or 5 states run the other 45 or so?
    It's not just about individual votes, those get represented in the house. Or will you also complain that the senate has outlived it's usefulness?
    After all, why do the 50million people in California get 2 votes, and the 2 mill in my state also get 2 whole votes??? MADNESS! OUTDATED!!

    Hardly.
    My view is that the EC system is flawed and should be either modified or scrapped. For example, if only the winner-takes-all system in each state were changed to a proportional approach such as in Maine and Nebraska, we would have a more representative result and likely wouldn't have cases where the winner of the EC vote was not the winner of the popular vote, as was the case in this election.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Well I agree with the voter turn out issue but I believe that the states have a stake in this for a reason. I don't think your POV identifies that reason or seeks to address it with the proposed changes. Instead it is assumed to be outdated and unimportant.. which is fine if your state is in the majority.
    You didn't exactly ask me how I would change it, did you?

  6. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by FRUEND
    ...which is why you have Senators and Representatives to represent you on those matters on a state level. The Electoral College's only function is to elect the President.
    And why isn't the president supposed to represent those issues as well? They seemed to when it came to that pipeline. No one was saying the pres should stay out of it because that is the Senators Job (especially the majority that elected him).

    Point is, the system is working and there isn't anything wrong with it. If it's o.k. for the senate to be "outdated" then it's o.k for the pres system as well.
    You don't get to cherry pick based off of direct representation.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    My view is that the EC system is flawed and should be either modified or scrapped. For example, if only the winner-takes-all system in each state were changed to a proportional approach such as in Maine and Nebraska, we would have a more representative result and likely wouldn't have cases where the winner of the EC vote was not the winner of the popular vote, as was the case in this election.
    The states decide that, and most don't like your idea (apparently). Sooo.. I guess that is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    You didn't exactly ask me how I would change it, did you?
    Like what you offered above? .. I pretty much knew, and my objection stands.
    To serve man.

  7. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    And why isn't the president supposed to represent those issues as well? They seemed to when it came to that pipeline. No one was saying the pres should stay out of it because that is the Senators Job (especially the majority that elected him).
    The President can represent those issues, but the President doesn't create bills or pass laws--Congress does. That's not to say the President doesn't have a role in that process--he does--it's just more at a federal level instead of at a state level. Your vote for President will have far less impact on you personally when compared to your senator and representative.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Point is, the system is working and there isn't anything wrong with it.
    I disagree. I have outlined the reasons why I disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    The states decide that, and most don't like your idea (apparently). Sooo.. I guess that is that?
    I guess that means I don't get to express my disagreement or point out flaws, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Like what you offered above? .. I pretty much knew, and my objection stands.
    I forgot you knew how to read minds...

  8. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Do you understand why the popular vote doesn't matter?
    Mybe technically, I wouldn't say it "doesn't matter".

    ---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    I'm not familiar with this. What are you talking about?
    I know there were some post civil war acts which infringed on the rights of the states in the name of countering the rampant racism at the time that were recently dismantled(I think by a court). Is that what your referring to?
    Yes.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    The President can represent those issues, but the President doesn't create bills or pass laws--Congress does. That's not to say the President doesn't have a role in that process--he does--it's just more at a federal level instead of at a state level. Your vote for President will have far less impact on you personally when compared to your senator and representative.
    It just seems to have been working as of late(like past 200 years).

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    I disagree. I have outlined the reasons why I disagree.
    O.k. why should the president be elected by popular vote? You know, in a republic?

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    I guess that means I don't get to express my disagreement or point out flaws, right?
    My point, is that your idea of a "more representative result" is an opinion not apparently shared by the states.
    At best this represents an uphill battle for your view. At worst it means your view is unsupported as the states have vastly chosen that their better represented by a winner take all.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    I forgot you knew how to read minds...
    I have a trap for that
    but seriously, there aren't that many arguments for change out there, and you proposed the most common one...so mind reading aside my assumption was right (though maybe unwarranted at the time).
    To serve man.

  10. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    It just seems to have been working as of late(like past 200 years).
    That all depends on what is meant by "working". If by "working" you mean the EC successfully elects the President of the U.S., then of course it "works". If you define "works" as "elects the President of the U.S. who received the most votes", then the answer changes as the EC has elected a President twice in the past 16 years who did not receive the most votes (overall).

    The EC might be "working" in the first sense, but in my view it doesn't work well.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    O.k. why should the president be elected by popular vote? You know, in a republic?
    We elect our Senators and Representatives directly, why not our President? Outside of that question, I have already raised numerous issues with the EC system. To recap:

    1. We have elected two Presidents in the past 16 years who did not receive the majority of the popular vote [source]
    2. The EC system possibly depresses voter turnout in non-swing states such as California and West Virginia [source]
    3. The EC system encourages candidates to spend the vast majority of their time and money in swing states [source]
    4. The winner-takes-all element of the EC in most states is not fully representative of the actual votes cast in the state

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    My point, is that your idea of a "more representative result" is an opinion not apparently shared by the states.
    At best this represents an uphill battle for your view. At worst it means your view is unsupported as the states have vastly chosen that their better represented by a winner take all.
    So what? As I mentioned in my first post, I don't think the system will change until a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college count.

    That being said, how exactly are the people better represented by a winner-take-all system?

  11. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You're welcome to start a new thread to debate the merits of voter ID, for now I think this thread has gone off the rails.
    OK, enjoy your electoral college debate instead.

    In an effort to get back on track I'd like to bring up Donald's unsubstantiated claim that 3 million "illegals" voted and the surprise that he is calling into question an election that he won.
    What about it? I don't take anything Trump says very seriously. Stuff he does I pay attention to. Presumably any illegal voting in the presidential election is going to go for Hillary unless they are out of their right mind since he promises to try and get rid of them. That makes some sence. But you need to prove illegal imigrants are voting despite the safeguards to prevent that.

    I did some digging, the claim originates from a tweet from a guy named Greg Phillips who says he is analyzing voter registration records. He's not released his analysis or data or explained how he's gotten that value or anything else, just made a completely unsupported claim on twitter. Essentially it means nothing.

    Also the fact that something like the 2 million vote lead in the popular vote hasn't happened in 140 years.
    Whatever, that has nothing to do with rigging an election. It's just our old electoral colledge at work.

    and finally, the dismantling of the voting rights act and the voter suppression tactics that happened in these states - such as interstate cross-check - which had nothng to do with voter ID since if you had an ID under this purge you'd still be given a provisional ballot which wasn't counted.
    The voting rights act business is something of a concern, but a lot of these laws still get challenged despite the court ruling. It mostly means they get to enact the law first, then get it challenged rather than having it challenged before they enact the law.

    The closing of polling places and other shenanigans of that kind we discussed somewhat in our voter ID discussion. Both MT and I seem to think that's ******** that needs to get fixed. Voting is essential to democracy, if the government needs to spend the money on only one thing, it should be ensuring that everyone who is entitled to is able to vote.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    That all depends on what is meant by "working". If by "working" you mean the EC successfully elects the President of the U.S., then of course it "works". If you define "works" as "elects the President of the U.S. who received the most votes", then the answer changes as the EC has elected a President twice in the past 16 years who did not receive the most votes (overall).

    The EC might be "working" in the first sense, but in my view it doesn't work well.
    What about representing the states? Isn't he the President of the United states? Or do you simply equate that with the people?
    So I would say that in general over the history of the U.S. the President has represented the united states well. So the system of the EC has worked.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    We elect our Senators and Representatives directly, why not our President?
    For the same reason that each state only gets 2 senators.
    The EC is a kind of balance between the house and senate, and it works well for a republic.
    What your saying would move us more to a direct democracy, and we shouldn't do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    So what? As I mentioned in my first post, I don't think the system will change until a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college count.

    That being said, how exactly are the people better represented by a winner-take-all system?
    The state is better represented, and the people (through their expressed will of the state) has said that their state interests are better represented by a winner take all.
    To serve man.

  13. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What about it? I don't take anything Trump says very seriously. Stuff he does I pay attention to. Presumably any illegal voting in the presidential election is going to go for Hillary unless they are out of their right mind since he promises to try and get rid of them. That makes some sence. But you need to prove illegal imigrants are voting despite the safeguards to prevent that.

    I did some digging, the claim originates from a tweet from a guy named Greg Phillips who says he is analyzing voter registration records. He's not released his analysis or data or explained how he's gotten that value or anything else, just made a completely unsupported claim on twitter. Essentially it means nothing.
    I take it seriously when someone who won the election is calling into question the validity of that election.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I take it seriously when someone who won the election is calling into question the validity of that election.
    You really shouldn't take anything Trump says seriously. He just opens his mouth and ******** comes out. (metaphorically of course, this was a tweet) Trump exists in fact free zone much of the time. There is zero evidence to back up his claim and he just doesn't care. He knows some people will just beleive whatever they want to believe and the repetition of the online media that likewise could care less abouty the truth, is more than enough to convince anyone who wants to believe it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    What about representing the states? Isn't he the President of the United states? Or do you simply equate that with the people?
    So I would say that in general over the history of the U.S. the President has represented the united states well. So the system of the EC has worked.
    I'm not disputing you can come up with a definition for "worked" that suggests the EC "works". I am saying that it doesn't work well. There's a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    What your saying would move us more to a direct democracy, and we shouldn't do it.
    I've outlined reasons why we should do it. Why shouldn't we do it? All you have stated so far is that it "works" and that abolishing or amending it would move us toward a direct democracy, but those aren't substantive reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    The state is better represented, and the people (through their expressed will of the state) has said that their state interests are better represented by a winner take all.
    I disagree that a state is better represented when all the candidate has to do is garner 51% of the vote in a particular state in order to receive 100% of the electoral votes. I disagree that a state is better represented when voters don't bother voting because they think their vote doesn't matter due to winner-take-all. I disagree that a state is better represented when candidates rarely if ever visit the state because it isn't a battleground/swing state.

  16. #35
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Also the fact that something like the 2 million vote lead in the popular vote hasn't happened in 140 years.
    Can you substantiate this claim? Challenge to support a claim.

    I only ask because you've made a series of claims in the last week that can easily be shown to be false with a ten second google search. ODN requires at least a basic level of research. Please ensure positive claims are factually correct.
    Last edited by Squatch347; December 1st, 2016 at 05:47 PM. Reason: Grammar
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    I've outlined reasons why we should do it. Why shouldn't we do it? All you have stated so far is that it "works" and that abolishing or amending it would move us toward a direct democracy, but those aren't substantive reasons.
    That it works is one of the most substinative responses to desired change that can be forwarded. I mean your case would be a lot better if it didn't work. That is why you frame it as "working well". Of course you should build a case that it can work better and why your way is better. You really haven't done that. You have sort of just poopooed the idea of winner take all representing a state well.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    I disagree that a state is better represented when all the candidate has to do is garner 51% of the vote in a particular state in order to receive 100% of the electoral votes. I disagree that a state is better represented when voters don't bother voting because they think their vote doesn't matter due to winner-take-all. I disagree that a state is better represented when candidates rarely if ever visit the state because it isn't a battleground/swing state.
    Well, on a state level that is how it works.
    The governor with the most votes, gets all the power of that office. He doesn't have a subordinate to take 40% of his power and authority.

    Bottom line, the President represents the states, the system works to that end so far.
    If you say it isn't working well, then you need to support that there is a better system and why it would be a better system. So far.. no comparison between the two systems has been made and the one that exists has a long history of working.
    To serve man.

  18. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    @Mindtrap: From your responses so far I don't think you have any intention of actually engaging in discussion and are quite content repeating the same points ad nauseum, so I will bow out. Thanks.

  19. #38
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Cowboy, please do not respond with solely a link. It is your obligation to support your claim or retract it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You really shouldn't take anything Trump says seriously.
    What he says has consequences. For example, when Obama said "if you like your plan, you can keep it" and it turned out to be not exactly true, he was chastised for it endlessly. Seems like you're supporting a double standard.

    ---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Cowboy, please do not respond with solely a link. It is your obligation to support your claim or retract it.
    "United States presidential election, 1876 Popular vote 4,034,311 4,288,546" Yet Tilden still lost.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_1876
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  21. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  22. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    What he says has consequences. For example, when Obama said "if you like your plan, you can keep it" and it turned out to be not exactly true, he was chastised for it endlessly. Seems like you're supporting a double standard.
    I have a single standard: The weight of consiquence with which you should ascribe to a statement is proportional to the reliablity and trustworthyness of the person or group making the statement.

    Trump is a serial liar, Obama is a trustworthy world leader. Doesn't mean one is always wrong and the other right, but in the inductive world of human beings, A lot more of what Obama says is going to be worth while than what Trump says.

    ---------- Post added at 09:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I only ask because you've made a series of claims in the last week that can easily be shown to be false with a ten second google search. ODN requires at least a basic level of research. Please ensure positive claims are factually correct.[/color]
    It's been widely reported in the media. He should have clarrified however that he means no loosing president has had won the popular vote by that many votes in 140 years. Not that I'm saying you shouldnt challenge him.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Election 2008 Rigged?
    By Wukong in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2009, 09:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •