Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-25-2013, 07:20 AM   #1
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Default Voter Fraud

It's not fraud if you just change the rules, right?

http://globalgrind.com/news/republic...l-votes-photos

So, it doesn't matter as much who wins the popular vote... it's who wins the most little crappy districts? Sleazy.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:40 PM   #2
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Two ways you can look at it:

Fraud because the Republicans thought it up

or

Justice because smaller counties get represented vs all the power resting in the more populous counties... Of course, that's only if the Dems had thought it up.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:46 PM   #3
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Two ways you can look at it:

Fraud because the Republicans thought it up

or

Justice because smaller counties get represented vs all the power resting in the more populous counties... Of course, that's only if the Dems had thought it up.
No, it's not technically fraud... it's just corruption.

It doesn't change the nature of how populous counties are represented.. it's about allocation of remainder votes... and instead of going to who actually won the overall popular vote...you know democracy...

Instead the Republicans want to skew results by number of counties... which is completely arbitrary, considering they are different amounts of people... so the votes of people will not matter as much as where they live/vote. That makes zero sense.

It's nothing but an obvious attempt to subvert the majority vote in order to win.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:24 PM   #4
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Except that we aren't... y'know... a democracy. We're a Republic.

Originally, we didn't even vote for the President. We voted for Governors who cast a ballot for President.

It's like the fact that Chicago completely dominates Illinois Politics, disaffecting everyone outside of that city.

If we were a democracy, that'd be the thing. But our founding fathers were suspicious of democracies because they did just what's happening now: Let the many overrun the few. The rights of the few are trampled on because they don't have as loud a voice. And if this were Democrats running this, you'd be in agreement with this sentiment.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 09:40 PM   #5
Aolynd
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 988
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post

Instead the Republicans want to skew results by number of counties... which is completely arbitrary, considering they are different amounts of people... so the votes of people will not matter as much as where they live/vote. That makes zero sense.
I don't disagree with you.

but at the same time...look at the quoted paragraph. Change the word "counties" to "States" and you get how the election is already decided currently.
Aolynd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 09:51 PM   #6
Aolynd
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 988
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Two ways you can look at it:

Fraud because the Republicans thought it up

or

Justice because smaller counties get represented vs all the power resting in the more populous counties... Of course, that's only if the Dems had thought it up.
The writers of the article have a good point, but they start off by shooting themselves in the foot and making it very difficult to take anything they say seriously unless you've already had at least half a glass of Kool-aid. The good point is lost in the fact that it's spotted by accident by retards.

It's pretty clear by the second sentence that the writers lost the ability to think for themselves years ago and would write a rabid declaration of hatred even if the republicans were proposing that water is wet.


But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Ignoring the "IM a sheep! I'm a sheep!" nature of the writers, you get a discussion about the nature of electors.

What they are proposing IS actually more consistent with how the election works nationally: electors apportioned by state rather than popular voting. State elections already ARE apportioned by county in most states. What they are proposing here is apportioning the 2 extra electors, which is also not new, it's done that way in a couple of states. (Maine and Nebraska?)

The other way to go is to apportion by popular vote.

It's a reasonable argument that could made either way. Although I happen to prefer the popular vote approach.

Last edited by Aolynd; 01-25-2013 at 09:53 PM. Reason: edit: Nebraska not Indiana
Aolynd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 06:53 AM   #7
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Except that we aren't... y'know... a democracy. We're a Republic.

Originally, we didn't even vote for the President. We voted for Governors who cast a ballot for President.

It's like the fact that Chicago completely dominates Illinois Politics, disaffecting everyone outside of that city.

If we were a democracy, that'd be the thing. But our founding fathers were suspicious of democracies because they did just what's happening now: Let the many overrun the few. The rights of the few are trampled on because they don't have as loud a voice. And if this were Democrats running this, you'd be in agreement with this sentiment.
I don't disagree that we are a Republic... and that is why we have electors... and doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

I am not saying that we shouldn't have electors... or even that everything should be done by popular vote... I am saying that in this situation, it makes sense that the two unallocated electors go to the popular vote, rather than arbitrary number of counties, which has nothing to do with number of votes as a whole. Why should the vote of a county with a population of 200 offset a county of 2 million? You are arbitrarily devaluing the votes of people in larger counties.

As far as saying that is how it works now by state- I don't think this is true, either. It is my understanding that the more people a state has, the more electorate votes. Is that incorrect? If it is correct, it seems to be consistent with giving the most weight to the popular vote, or the most weight to the largest populations.

I don't understand why you have such an issue with an urban center controlling a state? If most of the people in the state live there, then it SHOULD control which way the state goes. It might be different if we were voting by land holding...where the more land you hold, the more your vote counts, but we don't. So if everyone has an equal vote, wherever the most people are should matter more. That's just obvious, imo.

I think it's especially obvious in a place like Texas... we have TONS of counties and lots of sparsely populated areas.... if we were to allocate anything based on number of counties, you would have Rufugio County offsetting Harris County. That's just plain stupid. (Not that Texas won't be solid red for a while to come, hehe)
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 10:12 AM   #8
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
I don't disagree that we are a Republic... and that is why we have electors... and doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

I am not saying that we shouldn't have electors... or even that everything should be done by popular vote... I am saying that in this situation, it makes sense that the two unallocated electors go to the popular vote, rather than arbitrary number of counties, which has nothing to do with number of votes as a whole. Why should the vote of a county with a population of 200 offset a county of 2 million? You are arbitrarily devaluing the votes of people in larger counties.

As far as saying that is how it works now by state- I don't think this is true, either. It is my understanding that the more people a state has, the more electorate votes. Is that incorrect? If it is correct, it seems to be consistent with giving the most weight to the popular vote, or the most weight to the largest populations.

I don't understand why you have such an issue with an urban center controlling a state? If most of the people in the state live there, then it SHOULD control which way the state goes. It might be different if we were voting by land holding...where the more land you hold, the more your vote counts, but we don't. So if everyone has an equal vote, wherever the most people are should matter more. That's just obvious, imo.

I think it's especially obvious in a place like Texas... we have TONS of counties and lots of sparsely populated areas.... if we were to allocate anything based on number of counties, you would have Rufugio County offsetting Harris County. That's just plain stupid. (Not that Texas won't be solid red for a while to come, hehe)
I guess because we were never set up to have a system that went to the most populous. That's why we have a house AND a Senate. Each state gets equal say in the Senate, but the more populous states get more say in the house, and the Senators get the advantage of longer terms, while the House Congressmen get the advantage of being the ones to control the purse.

That's just one example of why I think your analysis has a flaw.

Much as Aol stated, it's how some states already do it, and it's also the way the electoral system works on a nationwide system now.

I don't know that I feel that it's the right way to go, but I'm not going to knee-jerk and call it corruption, just because I don't like one party over another. That's your job
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 10:19 AM   #9
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
I guess because we were never set up to have a system that went to the most populous. That's why we have a house AND a Senate. Each state gets equal say in the Senate, but the more populous states get more say in the house, and the Senators get the advantage of longer terms, while the House Congressmen get the advantage of being the ones to control the purse.

That's just one example of why I think your analysis has a flaw.

Much as Aol stated, it's how some states already do it, and it's also the way the electoral system works on a nationwide system now.

I don't know that I feel that it's the right way to go, but I'm not going to knee-jerk and call it corruption, just because I don't like one party over another. That's your job
Well, considering the motives- I think it's a valid issue to have with the change.

Moving from a popular concept to one that favors numerous geographic regions, regardless of populations should have a strong justification, and I have yet to see a credible one.

I would not be in favor for this change, regardless of which party it favors, simply because I see no rational justification for arbitrary numbers such as number of counties to be considered more strongly than number of votes cast for a particular candidate. I can certainly see the justification on a national level for the Senate, being as how the power is divided with the house, and it gives minority state representation. This does not do that, it allows overriding power within the same state to suppress the popular vote, rather than balance against it for election of a singular office in one branch.

Furthermore, you are applying the wrong framework to the wrong branch. The legislative was designed to accomodate populations, minoriy populations, and balance states. The Executive was meant to represent the popular vote of the entire country. (Well popular via electors)... I am not sure how the Presidential election process can be rationally misconstrued to give preferential weight to numbers of counties.

Edit: I am not arguing it "can't" be done, so the fact taht some states do it is irrelevant, imo. That doesn't make it rational or preferable.

Last edited by Pinkheart; 01-28-2013 at 10:25 AM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 01:10 PM   #10
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
Well, considering the motives- I think it's a valid issue to have with the change.

Moving from a popular concept to one that favors numerous geographic regions, regardless of populations should have a strong justification, and I have yet to see a credible one.
So you oppose the election of Senators?

Edit(Sorry, got distracted): So you oppose the system that enables the Senators of tiny (population-wise) states to have just as much influence as the larger states? Should we just do away with the Senate? Maybe reduce North Dakota's Seat to 0? After all, There's less people in the whole state of N Dakota than there are in Dallas. How patently unfair that they get 2 senate seats!
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North

Last edited by Drysdale; 01-28-2013 at 01:21 PM.
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 06:25 AM   #11
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
So you oppose the election of Senators?

Edit(Sorry, got distracted): So you oppose the system that enables the Senators of tiny (population-wise) states to have just as much influence as the larger states? Should we just do away with the Senate? Maybe reduce North Dakota's Seat to 0? After all, There's less people in the whole state of N Dakota than there are in Dallas. How patently unfair that they get 2 senate seats!
Did you not see my comments regarding the Senate and why I see it as necessary? I explained what I consider as the big difference between the Senate and this system. No, I do not have an issue with the Senate. Go back and see why this is different and why I do not support this. I'll give you a hint, a large part of it has to do with the Executive branch not being a bicameral system. If we are just going to start taking parts of election processes from other branches... why not have an appointed POTUS, like the Judiciary or why not have two Presidents, one elected by the Senate and one by the House... like the legislature is elected?

Different branches- different systems. The POTUS is a singular office elected by the majority of Americans... not the majority of counties. (Well, theoretically... via electors.. we all know a POTUS can win without the popular vote..and this system just makes that even more probable)

Last edited by Pinkheart; 01-29-2013 at 06:38 AM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 12:47 PM   #12
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
And the POTUS should be elected by popular vote because..... ?

Remember, our system was set up to work in spite of the will of the majority. Not in favor of.

The Executive was meant to represent the popular vote of the entire country.
You couldn't be more wrong. The House was set up to represent the popular vote of the country. The electoral college is proof that the Executive wasn't meant to represent the popular vote.

The executive was meant to execute the rule of law, not the rule of man. This is where your understanding fails you miserably.

The President is the head of the military and the executor of the laws. His job is to carry out the laws.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North

Last edited by Drysdale; 01-29-2013 at 01:12 PM.
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 01:58 PM   #13
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And the POTUS should be elected by popular vote because..... ?

Remember, our system was set up to work in spite of the will of the majority. Not in favor of.



You couldn't be more wrong. The House was set up to represent the popular vote of the country. The electoral college is proof that the Executive wasn't meant to represent the popular vote.

The executive was meant to execute the rule of law, not the rule of man. This is where your understanding fails you miserably.
Again, you are ignoring what I wrote. I specifically cited the electors as the mechanism for election of the POTUS. Why don't you read what I actually write? WTF are you atlking about the rule of man? The POTUS is supposed to execute and uphold the Constitution. No shit. The judiciary enforces the laws of men (duly enacted legislation, anyway)... and provides Constitutional Review, of course. I am pretty sure number of electors are still a function of population via the House of Rep inclusion in the calculation. I could be wrong about that, but I think that is correct.

The President is the head of the military and the executor of the laws. His job is to carry out the laws.
No shit.. he's the civilian head of the military.

I get that you want to talk about Constitutional roles, just don't forget to read what I actually write before you respond, please.

In any case, your discussion still has little to do with the subject at hand as far as electors going to counties vs. votes. No one is talking about whether the electorate process is okay. It's just how to assign them within that system.

Bullshit aside... how does number of counties even make sense?? Some counties have a couple hundred people in them!

Last edited by Pinkheart; 01-29-2013 at 02:05 PM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 10:33 AM   #14
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
Again, you are ignoring what I wrote. I specifically cited the electors as the mechanism for election of the POTUS. Why don't you read what I actually write?
So explain this statement:
The Executive was meant to represent the popular vote of the entire country.
That's completely ad odds with what you're stating now.

WTF are you atlking about the rule of man? The POTUS is supposed to execute and uphold the Constitution. No shit. The judiciary enforces the laws of men (duly enacted legislation, anyway)... and provides Constitutional Review, of course. I am pretty sure number of electors are still a function of population via the House of Rep inclusion in the calculation. I could be wrong about that, but I think that is correct.
The electors were set up as a buffer against populism.



No shit.. he's the civilian head of the military.

I get that you want to talk about Constitutional roles, just don't forget to read what I actually write before you respond, please.
I did. You're either full of it, going insane, or contradicting yourself.

In any case, your discussion still has little to do with the subject at hand as far as electors going to counties vs. votes. No one is talking about whether the electorate process is okay. It's just how to assign them within that system.

Bullshit aside... how does number of counties even make sense?? Some counties have a couple hundred people in them!
So those people deserve no representation?

Is it really fair right now?

Mr. Obama's electoral vote victory was actually significantly larger than his 3.9 percentage point popular vote advantage: He took 332 electoral votes to 206 for Romney. Why the disparity? In part because of the way electoral votes are allocated. Most states allocate their electoral votes based on who wins the popular vote: Even though Mr. Obama only won Florida narrowly in November, for instance, he got all 29 of its electoral votes.
Hmm...

There are two states that do things differently. In Nebraska and Maine, electoral votes are allocated based on who wins each congressional district. That means that the winner of the statewide popular vote doesn't necessarily get all of a state's electoral votes - or even the majority of them.
So each congressional district is actually what we're talking about here. Not each county, as you originally said.

Strange how this has been in place in Maine and Nebraska for quite some time, and you never mustered up any anger over it. Again, you're only bitching because it's the Republicans who came up with this scheme. If the Democrats had, you'd be trumpeting it's virtues.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 11:02 AM   #15
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
So explain this statement:


That's completely ad odds with what you're stating now.

I said
Originally Posted by Pinkheart
(Well popular via electors)... I am not sure how the Presidential election process can be rationally misconstrued to give preferential weight to numbers of counties.
Specifically noting the role of electors and making the point in THIS CONTEXT that the change makes no sense. Please stay on topic and resist the urge to go on a tangent about Constitutional roles, etc. Not that it isn't interesting, but you are ignoring the topic and spewing a little bit.

The electors were set up as a buffer against populism.
Okay, again what the heck does that have to do with this change or the discussion of this change? You are so busy trying to be "right" about something you are not focusing on the topic at hand.

I did. You're either full of it, going insane, or contradicting yourself.
Really? That's your response to the topic? Namecalling? You are offering zero substance to work with here on topic. I ask you to read what I wrote and please give me a topical response... so you come back with "I did"... and namecalling? Please, just drop the internet "winning" bullshit, and give me something on the coversation. Why does this change make any damn sense? Other states do it... fine. States do lots of things... other countries do things... but why the hell should we do this?


So those people deserve no representation?
They are represented... according to the state allocation of electors... they certainly get to vote, just like everyone else. I don't know how you try to characterize their fewer votes having less impact than a larger number of votes as "no respresentation"

Is it really fair right now?
Winner take all? Well, the person that wins the popular vote in a state wins electors... It's not the best method, no. I don't think counties has anything to do with it, but prorating elector votes based on voting would make more sense... If a state is 51-50, then halving the votes, rounding up for the winnr would make sense to me.

This change doesn't address that though... it just might substitute one arbitrary policy with another one.

I would certainly support elector votes being split in states based on the popular vote. That, at least can be rationally argued.

So each congressional district is actually what we're talking about here. Not each county, as you originally said.

Strange how this has been in place in Maine and Nebraska for quite some time, and you never mustered up any anger over it. Again, you're only bitching because it's the Republicans who came up with this scheme. If the Democrats had, you'd be trumpeting it's virtues.
No, I just had no idea those states were doing this. You can make up whatever scenario you want regarding my motives. I can just as easily say that you are only lapping it up because Republicans proposed it. There really isn't any point in such speculation. I am not sure what basis you have for such claims regarding my motives... I am pretty far apart with the left on guns...you are pretty lock step with the GOP. But why turn it into some kind of partisan based bickering? Can't we discuss the merits of the topic at hand?
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.