|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: Crystal G] 2
#23822494 - 11/11/16 10:00 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Intelligent people.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
endogenous
נפל מגיהינום


Registered: 10/07/12
Posts: 2,365
Last seen: 25 days, 3 hours
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: koods]
#23823607 - 11/11/16 05:13 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Democracy is mob rule?
Why are you even thinking about this as states get to choose the president? We don't elect the president to represent states. He represents the people of the entire country. The senate is where the people of a state get to elect the person who represents their state. Even the house of representatives is skewed toward small states where a state like California gets one representative per 700,000 people and smaller states get one per a half million.
Why does an individual in Montana have four times as much influence as an individual in California. Why does it matter where they live? Everyone should have an equal say. (And since in the aggregate, small states are more conservative and large states are more liberal, why do republicans votes count more than democratic ones?)
Clinton got 400,000 more votes than Trump. Please explain how by the mere fact that these voters were in high population states, their votes shouldn't count.
We have a situation in this country where democratic candidates get more votes in the senate races more votes in house races, and more votes for the president and get nothing to show for it. This is not mob rule. It is tyranny of the minority.

I'm not sure how it would apply to the Senate races, but since the "Supreme" Court allowed gerrymandering, it is definitely true of the House.
If gerrymandering weren't allowed, the House would be run by the Democrats.
Edited by endogenous (11/11/16 05:20 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: endogenous] 1
#23823648 - 11/11/16 05:24 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Doubtful, though the numbers might be closer.
And yet, it's a foolish statement from koods. As the individual states elect their own Senators and Representatives... the total number of D or R votes nationwide has zero bearing on control of the House or Senate. When more states select R's or D's, the control of the House or Senate goes along with it.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#23823839 - 11/11/16 06:26 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Doubtful, though the numbers might be closer.
And yet, it's a foolish statement from koods. As the individual states elect their own Senators and Representatives... the total number of D or R votes nationwide has zero bearing on control of the House or Senate. When more states select R's or D's, the control of the House or Senate goes along with it.
You don't understand, that's exactly his point. If you have 4 red states with a population of 12 and only 1 blue state with a population of 300 then your senate will have 8 republicans and only 2 democrats despite the democrats vastly outnumber the republicans nationwide.
|
endogenous
נפל מגיהינום


Registered: 10/07/12
Posts: 2,365
Last seen: 25 days, 3 hours
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: krypto2000]
#23824813 - 11/12/16 02:33 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, the Senate was supposed to make up for the lack of representatives in states that don't have large populations.
That's why the electoral college should be abandoned. The Senate does what the electoral college originally was supposed to do and now it only serves to cause injustice.
Get rid of that slave era dinosaur!
-------------------- The Day of the Lord has come like a thief in the night. -- It is there but no one knows it.
Edited by endogenous (11/12/16 02:38 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: krypto2000]
#23824941 - 11/12/16 05:30 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
krypto2000 said:
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Doubtful, though the numbers might be closer.
And yet, it's a foolish statement from koods. As the individual states elect their own Senators and Representatives... the total number of D or R votes nationwide has zero bearing on control of the House or Senate. When more states select R's or D's, the control of the House or Senate goes along with it.
You don't understand, that's exactly his point. If you have 4 red states with a population of 12 and only 1 blue state with a population of 300 then your senate will have 8 republicans and only 2 democrats despite the democrats vastly outnumber the republicans nationwide.
Alas, the point missed is yours and koods. In your case I'll assume you just don't understand how the electoral college works. In koods... he's just a partisan hack.
Each state has one elector per Senator and one elector per Representative. As the number of Representatives each state has is based on the number of people in the state, the state with 300 in your example will have a substantially larger group of electors.
This is why a state like California has 55 Electors (2 Senators and 53 Representatives) and a state like Montana has 3 (2 Senators and 1 Representative).
Using your example: Each red state has an average population of 3, so 1 Rep. and 2 Senators for each entire state. The blue state, having 1 Rep per 3 citizens would have 100 Reps and 2 Senators for the entire state.
The total electors in all your red states combined would be 12. The total electors in your one blue state would be 100.
Your blue state would select the President each and every time.
Using your example, you would need 34 red states to have more electors than your 1 blue state.
The US is a union of states, each state is a union of its citizens. Each state selects their individual choice of President.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (11/12/16 05:42 AM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: endogenous]
#23825111 - 11/12/16 07:43 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
endogenous said: Actually, the Senate was supposed to make up for the lack of representatives in states that don't have large populations.
so partisan politicians are supposed to vote on behalf of states with small populations
let me give you a breakdown of how it works
the electoral college elects the president and the vice president, if there is a tie in the electoral college the house of representatives then votes to break that tie for president and the senate votes on the vice president. the senate is not there to vote on behalf of states with small populations
|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#23825232 - 11/12/16 08:40 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
krypto2000 said:
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Doubtful, though the numbers might be closer.
And yet, it's a foolish statement from koods. As the individual states elect their own Senators and Representatives... the total number of D or R votes nationwide has zero bearing on control of the House or Senate. When more states select R's or D's, the control of the House or Senate goes along with it.
You don't understand, that's exactly his point. If you have 4 red states with a population of 12 and only 1 blue state with a population of 300 then your senate will have 8 republicans and only 2 democrats despite the democrats vastly outnumber the republicans nationwide.
Alas, the point missed is yours and koods. In your case I'll assume you just don't understand how the electoral college works. In koods... he's just a partisan hack.
Each state has one elector per Senator and one elector per Representative. As the number of Representatives each state has is based on the number of people in the state, the state with 300 in your example will have a substantially larger group of electors.
This is why a state like California has 55 Electors (2 Senators and 53 Representatives) and a state like Montana has 3 (2 Senators and 1 Representative).
Using your example: Each red state has an average population of 3, so 1 Rep. and 2 Senators for each entire state. The blue state, having 1 Rep per 3 citizens would have 100 Reps and 2 Senators for the entire state.
The total electors in all your red states combined would be 12. The total electors in your one blue state would be 100.
Your blue state would select the President each and every time.
Using your example, you would need 34 red states to have more electors than your 1 blue state.
The US is a union of states, each state is a union of its citizens. Each state selects their individual choice of President.
Thanks for the lengthy explanation of how the electoral college works but we're talking about the senate
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: krypto2000]
#23825238 - 11/12/16 08:43 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
krypto2000 said: Thanks for the lengthy explanation of how the electoral college works but we're talking about the senate 
and the senate does what exactly?
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 41 seconds
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: luvdemshrooms] 1
#23825251 - 11/12/16 08:47 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
krypto2000 said:
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Doubtful, though the numbers might be closer.
And yet, it's a foolish statement from koods. As the individual states elect their own Senators and Representatives... the total number of D or R votes nationwide has zero bearing on control of the House or Senate. When more states select R's or D's, the control of the House or Senate goes along with it.
You don't understand, that's exactly his point. If you have 4 red states with a population of 12 and only 1 blue state with a population of 300 then your senate will have 8 republicans and only 2 democrats despite the democrats vastly outnumber the republicans nationwide.
Alas, the point missed is yours and koods. In your case I'll assume you just don't understand how the electoral college works. In koods... he's just a partisan hack.
Each state has one elector per Senator and one elector per Representative. As the number of Representatives each state has is based on the number of people in the state, the state with 300 in your example will have a substantially larger group of electors.
This is why a state like California has 55 Electors (2 Senators and 53 Representatives) and a state like Montana has 3 (2 Senators and 1 Representative).
Using your example: Each red state has an average population of 3, so 1 Rep. and 2 Senators for each entire state. The blue state, having 1 Rep per 3 citizens would have 100 Reps and 2 Senators for the entire state.
The total electors in all your red states combined would be 12. The total electors in your one blue state would be 100.
Your blue state would select the President each and every time.
Using your example, you would need 34 red states to have more electors than your 1 blue state.
The US is a union of states, each state is a union of its citizens. Each state selects their individual choice of President.
States shouldn't be selecting the president, the people should.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 41 seconds
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23825255 - 11/12/16 08:49 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
endogenous said: Actually, the Senate was supposed to make up for the lack of representatives in states that don't have large populations.
so partisan politicians are supposed to vote on behalf of states with small populations
let me give you a breakdown of how it works
the electoral college elects the president and the vice president, if there is a tie in the electoral college the house of representatives then votes to break that tie for president and the senate votes on the vice president. the senate is not there to vote on behalf of states with small populations
You're not even in on the same conversation as usual
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23825481 - 11/12/16 10:27 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
krypto2000 said: Thanks for the lengthy explanation of how the electoral college works but we're talking about the senate 
and the senate does what exactly?
Is there a specific role that you are trying to address or are you asking because you simply don't know what they do? If it's the former I don't know what you're referring to, and if it's the later I don't understand why you're asking the question; if you don't know then you're best to look it up yourself.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: krypto2000]
#23825518 - 11/12/16 10:38 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
krypto2000 said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
krypto2000 said: Thanks for the lengthy explanation of how the electoral college works but we're talking about the senate 
and the senate does what exactly?
Is there a specific role that you are trying to address or are you asking because you simply don't know what they do? If it's the former I don't know what you're referring to, and if it's the later I don't understand why you're asking the question; if you don't know then you're best to look it up yourself.
Quote:
endogenous said: Actually, the Senate was supposed to make up for the lack of representatives in states that don't have large populations.
and the senate does what exactly?
|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23825551 - 11/12/16 10:49 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Favors the less populated red states in the same way the electoral college does? Haven't we been over this or are you disagreeing in some way?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: krypto2000]
#23825675 - 11/12/16 11:36 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
krypto2000 said: Favors the less populated red states in the same way the electoral college does? Haven't we been over this or are you disagreeing in some way?
and it favors them in an election how?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: koods] 1
#23825701 - 11/12/16 11:48 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: States shouldn't be selecting the president, the people should.
No. Because yet again... it's a union of states.And quite frankly, the people are selecting the President... state by state. Which is as it should be.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (11/12/16 01:20 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: koods]
#23825704 - 11/12/16 11:48 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: You're not even in on the same conversation as usual
I thought I'd try your posting style.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: koods]
#23825710 - 11/12/16 11:51 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Just admit it koods... you don't like the current system because we sometimes get Rep Presidents when in koods world only Dems are acceptable.
Be honest. It'll do you good.
Do you have that smidgen of honesty in you or has your partisanship stripped it from you?
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 41 seconds
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23825731 - 11/12/16 11:58 AM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
krypto2000 said: Favors the less populated red states in the same way the electoral college does? Haven't we been over this or are you disagreeing in some way?
and it favors them in an election how?
Small states get a minimum of three electoral votes, not one. To make up for this fact, electoral votes are taken away from larger states. States like Montana, Wyoming Alaska and DC (which is essentially a state for this discussion) each have two more electoral votes than their population deserves and California is missing TEN
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 41 seconds
|
Re: Clinton Won The Popular Vote By 202,340 Votes [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#23825738 - 11/12/16 12:01 PM (7 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: Just admit it koods... you don't like the current system because we sometimes get Rep Presidents when in koods world only Dems are acceptable.
Be honest. It'll do you good.
Do you have that smidgen of honesty in you or has your partisanship stripped it from you?
Sometimes? Twice in 16 years. That isn't a fluke. That is a rigged system. How can you defend a system where democrats need to not just get most of the votes they need to win by a fill percentage point?
Of course you like the system we have now because you're a partisan hack and it favors your side.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (11/12/16 12:06 PM)
|
|