The Trump Presidency

have you tried hot water with lemon?

It would be neat to see what would happen if there was just a blind vote based on a short questionnaire. You fill out your feelings on several issues and general moral stances on a sliding scale of important/not important/okay/not acceptable/etc., the candidates do the same, it casts your vote with whoever best matches up with you on aggregate.

I suspect a lot of religious folks would end up very surprised at how terribly the morals they put on paper align with the brand of politician they usually vote for, with the names obscured and the Rs and Ds cast aside.

Though, of course, the problem candidates would just lie their positions to still match up with those voters. Maybe like, a third party grades their responses indirectly based on their historical data on those issues? I dunno.

Anyway, pipe dream, but a nice thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Then why do most minority groups vote D? (Bonus question: Why do Rs do everything they can to prevent them from voting?)

In other words: You are arbitrarily defining a minority.

---

No I am not. I’m choosing a common behaviour to a region and asking if this perspective should be considered. Your answer isn’t direct but found in the choice of the term “bumblefuck”. It was once a majority perspective that people of colour shouldn’t be allowed to own property. And that gays were just mentally ill. Also that small businesses shouldn’t pay any income tax.

And to kedawa saying their votes would count the same: right that’s the problem. Their votes would ALWAYS get drowned out by the issues of dense urban centres. That’s the point of normalization. Those states still have less influence overall but the college at least gives them a shot.

Why would Montana be a part of the Unity of States without representation? You’re literally advocating the fracturing of the makeup of America. “But Trump won!” Isn’t a good enough reason because although a terrible pres it was business as intended. Hilary bungled a lot of campaigning in these very delegate battleground states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony

You are saying, because there are fewer of them, they have less influence? How is it undersized? What determines the proper size. I would say they have more of a voice than I do at the moment.

---

They do have more influence than you per vote. But overall you still have 29 delegates to their 3-4. It’s not like population density counts for 0. It just doesn’t count for 100%

What about the people in those less populated states who don't vote with that state's majority?

I think I'd rather it be my vote that counts than my state's vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

There, I fixed it for you.

I think a lot of people forget we are 50 self governed states in a union similar to the EU.

The popular vote of the State* determines who the state votes for.

The state has X amount of votes 50% depending on population 50% equally.


*Kansas and Maine are exceptions which split their vote.

---

A) I live in Maine

B) The conversation I joined in was about how the electoral college lessens and now regularly negates the impact of the popular vote in favor of giving less populated states greater voting power. In local/state elections one vote = one vote. In national elections one vote = a variable number depending on the state it's from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewbacca

No I am not. I’m choosing a common behaviour to a region and asking if this perspective should be considered. Your answer isn’t direct but found in the choice of the term “bumblefuck”. It was once a majority perspective that people of colour shouldn’t be allowed to own property. And that gays were just mentally ill. Also that small businesses shouldn’t pay any income tax.

And to kedawa saying their votes would count the same: right that’s the problem. Their votes would ALWAYS get drowned out by the issues of dense urban centres. That’s the point of normalization. Those states still have less influence overall but the college at least gives them a shot.

Why would Montana be a part of the Unity of States without representation? You’re literally advocating the fracturing of the makeup of America. “But Trump won!” Isn’t a good enough reason because although a terrible pres it was business as intended. Hilary bungled a lot of campaigning in these very delegate battleground states.

---

If a zillion people on the coast, vs. a hundred thousand in the middle, vote for the representative of the whole US it should probably go to the zillion. The middle still has plenty of representation on the local and state level. That the whole fucking point of local government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewbacca

I’m choosing a common behaviour to a region

---

arbitrary

and again, local govt

why is my edit post not working?

Quote:

---

asking if this perspective should be considered

---

no, because Republicans have won the popular vote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

In local/state elections one vote = one vote. In national elections one vote = one vote.

---

I fixed it for you.

The union picks a president by a majority of state votes. How the state votes is determined by the state. To be fair to the states with larger populations, the union agreed 81% of a state’s weight is determined by population. or 439 electoral college votes. Only 19% or 100 votes are divided equally. You greedy fucks are complaining about a dime out of a dollar.

What if taxes were the same? You’re arguing for a flat tax when you’re in the top 20% of earners paying 32%.