Dennis Kucinich vs. Ron Paul

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
And I don't agree with your 'states have a say' comment, if they do, then every state should have the same number of electoral votes. Why should CA have 54 electoral votes and DC 2?

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
And I don't agree with your 'states have a say' comment, if they do, then every state should have the same number of electoral votes. Why should CA have 54 electoral votes and DC 2?

this completely invalidates any opinion you could ever express on this matter … do some basic reading about the history of the country in which you live, federalism, the apportionment of representatives in the House and the Senate, and the electoral college, then get back to us

you could start here

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
And I don't agree with your 'states have a say' comment, if they do, then every state should have the same number of electoral votes. Why should CA have 54 electoral votes and DC 2?

this completely invalidates any opinion you could ever express on this matter … do some basic reading about the history of the country in which you live, federalism, the apportionment of representatives in the House and the Senate, and the electoral college, then get back to us

you could start here

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
How can you invalidate an opinion??? It's a fucking "opinion" You can disagree or argue against, but you can't invalidate it.

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:


your opinion about our representative democracy was discredited or invalidated by your complete lack of knowledge about how our system of government works

Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
"Hoya Paranoia." Do you personally think the Electoral College is a fair way to elect a president?

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
So does that mean if I don't know how to play a note of music, my opinions on various albums are invalid?

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
How can you invalidate an opinion??? It's a fucking "opinion" You can disagree or argue against, but you can't invalidate it.

in·val·i·date
1. to render invalid; discredit.

sorry to burst your bubble, but opinions can be both validated and invalidated

your opinion about our representative democracy was discredited or invalidated by your complete lack of knowledge about how our system of government works ("Why should CA have 54 electoral votes and DC 2? Is DC any less important than CA when it comes to electing a president?")

any teenager who's taken a civics class could handle that one

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
using your logic that DC is less important than CA because it's smaller and less populated

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
And why should DC be less important than CA just because it's smaller and less populated?

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:


And why should DC be less important than CA just because it's smaller and less populated? [/QB]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
but then my misanthropic side says we should do just about anything to keep power out of the hands of the slack-jawed masses and let technocrats handle the business of the country … but that's clearly just a knee-jerk reaction to the teeming hordes of obese jean-shorted tourists i see around all the time

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
using your logic that DC is less important than CA because it's smaller and less populated

that is not "my logic"

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
And why should DC be less important than CA just because it's smaller and less populated?

DC is in a unique situation, so essentially you're comparing apples to oranges … substitute for DC a small state like Delaware and you have one of the essential issues confronting our founders while drafting the Constitution …

their solution was to create a bicameral legislative system whereby one branch, the Senate, had a fixed and equal number of representatives from each state (ensuring that residents of small states would have a voice) and the other branch, the House, had its number of representatives from each state determined proportionately by the population of each state (a more pure representative democracy)

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
We are discussing the presidential election, not the house or senate….

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
and why don't counties within states have mini-electoral colleges to select reps and senators if it's such a democratic system?

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:

… it's simply easier in a presidential vote for democrats and republicans to separate states into 3 categories: red, blue, and swing … they don't have to campaign or spend money in states they have sewn up

cynical? sure, but that's why it stays the way it does

So some states are less important than others….hmmmmmm not very democratic if you ask me. A simple popular vote would make more sense to me…but who am I if not a dumb immigrant.

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:

… it's simply easier in a presidential vote for democrats and republicans to separate states into 3 categories: red, blue, and swing … they don't have to campaign or spend money in states they have sewn up

cynical? sure, but that's why it stays the way it does

So some states are less important than others….hmmmmmm not very democratic if you ask me. A simple popular vote would make more sense to me…but who am I if not a dumb immigrant.

but then, wouldn't a candidate simply have to cater to more populous states? how is that fair to smaller and less populous states? again resulting in some states being more important than others. . .

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but then, wouldn't a candidate simply have to cater to more populous states? how is that fair to smaller and less populous states? again resulting in some states being more important than others. . .

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
not that i'm arguing for the electoral college, just showing the necessary implications of changing the system

Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Hey, if a candidate only campaigns in California, Texas, Florida and the northeast and wins, then fine. If he/she gets more votes than the other guy/woman, then he/she should win. That's the way majority works. I don't think a candidate would ever be stupid enough to do that considering the backlash, but if more people vote for him/her, than that's the way it is.

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but then, wouldn't a candidate simply have to cater to more populous states? how is that fair to smaller and less populous states? again resulting in some states being more important than others. . .

a very good point, but in a pure national popular vote count, the entire presidential campaign would be focused not just on the populous states, but on big urban media markets where candidates could reach the sheer largest number of voters … rural/small city people would be shut out of the process and it would effectively kill any last semblance of retail presidential politics that we have in this country

not that i'm arguing for the electoral college, just showing the necessary implications of changing the system