The reply answered them all as far as I can see, perhaps you should clarify your confusion?
Then apparently you can not see very far, do not understand why the states elect the president and do not understand the role of the federal government vs the role of state government in the U.S.
For example;
Question: Why do the states elect the president?
Your answer: "To give states with less population a voice". Incorrect.
Do not bother replying until you can answer that question correctly. Then we may be able to have a discussion. Do some research and come back.
@eoten: Blah blah blah mathematically the big populations cannot control the election without smaller areas voting along with them. Also we have equal representation with the Senate and the House is based on population. The president should be elected by the population.
Why? The executive branch is elected by the states. That's the way it was set up in the constitution. Do you understand why it was set up that way? Do you understand the responsibilities of the federal government vs state governments? Its ok if you don't, lots of people don't. Just curious how much you understand about the structure of our government so I can properly respond (if I feel it's worth the effort and could generate a discussion).
Yes. It was to give a voice to states with less population. Do you understand that?
I asked 3 questions and that does not appear to be an answer to any of them. Can you clarify your response by referencing which question you are addressing? We can take them one at a time if you prefer (will be easier to cut the quote chains down and for me to respond using my phone).
@Maroxad: Indeed. I have never like the EC as I think it silences the people. But hey what do I know I like democracy.
Same,
Even though I lean left, I actually started opposing the electoral college due to some things right wingers said about it. I didnt like the fact that their voices were silenced, even if I disagreed with them. That just... didnt sit right with me.
Disenfranchisement impacts both parties when it comes to the EC. The reality is if you aren't one of the 10 or so states that are competitive, you are effectively worthless to the process. 40% of Kentucky is blue, 30% of California is red. But as far as the EC cares, 100% of Kentucky is red, 100% of California is blue. And because they are fairly locked into those values no candidate will ever give a shit about those states, they have no reason at all to campaign at a genuinely national level. Which in turn means the exact same problem is happening that EC is supposed to prevent: individual voices in specific locations are not being heard and catered to.
You guys do realize that is a state level issue right? The state legislatures could choose to go to a proportional distribution of electors or a hybrid, like done in Main and Nebraska. You do not have to do away with the EC, the states still choose the President (as directed in the constitution) but the electors will more closely reflect the populations vote.
@eoten: Blah blah blah mathematically the big populations cannot control the election without smaller areas voting along with them. Also we have equal representation with the Senate and the House is based on population. The president should be elected by the population.
Why? The executive branch is elected by the states. That's the way it was set up in the constitution. Do you understand why it was set up that way? Do you understand the responsibilities of the federal government vs state governments? Its ok if you don't, lots of people don't. Just curious how much you understand about the structure of our government so I can properly respond (if I feel it's worth the effort and could generate a discussion).
If you live in California your vote for determining the direction of the executive for the next four years is worth less than a third of the vote of someone in Wyoming thanks to the ratio of population to electorals. Additionally, states have the ability to govern themselves in regards to gerrymandering for better district and territory positioning, ensuring that your vote matters for less by lumping you into isolated communities to suit their whims.
Yes, voting in America is fucked and needs several updates if we want any chance of enduring another DT.
The EC in particular needs to die. It's a woefully outdated concept that was only ever in the constitution to keep slave states happy.
I see... i understand. So it is kind of unfair, not saying is better in other places, i just wanted to understend more about the subject.
That is not correct.
A persons vote in California is not comparable to a Wyoming vote because the individual voter is selecting how they want their state to vote. California has a greater say (electors and representatives) at the federal level then Wyoming.
The EC is a fundamental part of our government structure and its implementation has nothing to do with "keeping slave states happy". Was more about keeping small states happy.
The states elect the president, not the popular vote. The number of electors each state gets is determined by population. The more populated the state the more electors it gets. How those electors are chosen is up to the states.
Politicians making political statements against political opponents is not a rebuttal.
'What is good for the goose is good for the gander' is a perfectly good response in this instance especially as you are defending the person quoted.
No it's not. Do you need me to explain why?
you don't need to, you have double standards, no explanation is necessary.
Prove double standards, you can't. You clearly do need me to explain why, and and also don't really understand what you were replying to in the first place.
A hint: my comments were were about the claim that the President bears sole responsibility for our current situation. Politicians blaming each other dosen't change the way the constitution lays out who has what responsibilities.
We pay state and local taxes as well. Should our local and state governments not bear some responsibility for the situation we are in?
The President has a role and the state/local leadership has a role. I have not stated that the President bears no responsibility, only that the President does not bear the sole responsibility as the article implies.
"Worse" is a relative measurement depending on what you use as a baseline. If one were to use the models based off "no actions taken" the projections for deaths were in the millions so 200k+ is not "worse". I have not seen anyone post that they are "ok" with the President making things worse, only arguing against the premise that he made it worse.
Republican senators disagree:
In an interview that was broadcast on CNN, Dana Bash posed a question to Iowa Senator Joni Ernst over her then-criticism of former President Obama back in 2014 when there was an Ebola outbreak, in which she stated that Obama expressed failed leadership based on a total of 2 deaths in 2014.
Also, so does trump:
Trump tweeted that “President Obama has a personal responsibility to visit & embrace all people in the US who contract Ebola!” On Oct. 23, 2014, he kept ramping it up: “If this doctor, who so recklessly flew into New York from West Africa, has Ebola, then Obama should apologize to the American people & resign!”
Politicians making political statements against political opponents is not a rebuttal.
'What is good for the goose is good for the gander' is a perfectly good response in this instance especially as you are defending the person quoted.
We pay state and local taxes as well. Should our local and state governments not bear some responsibility for the situation we are in?
The President has a role and the state/local leadership has a role. I have not stated that the President bears no responsibility, only that the President does not bear the sole responsibility as the article implies.
"Worse" is a relative measurement depending on what you use as a baseline. If one were to use the models based off "no actions taken" the projections for deaths were in the millions so 200k+ is not "worse". I have not seen anyone post that they are "ok" with the President making things worse, only arguing against the premise that he made it worse.
Republican senators disagree:
In an interview that was broadcast on CNN, Dana Bash posed a question to Iowa Senator Joni Ernst over her then-criticism of former President Obama back in 2014 when there was an Ebola outbreak, in which she stated that Obama expressed failed leadership based on a total of 2 deaths in 2014.
Also, so does trump:
Trump tweeted that “President Obama has a personal responsibility to visit & embrace all people in the US who contract Ebola!” On Oct. 23, 2014, he kept ramping it up: “If this doctor, who so recklessly flew into New York from West Africa, has Ebola, then Obama should apologize to the American people & resign!”
Politicians making political statements against political opponents is not a rebuttal.
Log in to comment