The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[Rhea]

If either TX or FL had gone blue, nobody would have given a damn about what Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota or Oregon wanted.

EXACTLY!!! Yes, that is what I’m talking about.


They didn’t turn blue, and so the outsize votes of Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota or Oregon and the degraded votesize of NY and CA influence the election. Because if all of the American people who happen to live in California and New York had their votes counted equally, we would not have needed either TX or Florida, because the bulwark of Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota or Oregon wouldn’t have left him close enough.


Exactly, yes. Thank you.


I honestly don’t get this idea that “my vote should have twice (or four times!) as much influence in the presidential election as yours - because I live on a dirt road!”


And again, millions of Texans, Californians, Pennsylvnians and New Yorkers live on dirt roads, and I am no less worthy that a Wyomingite to have my dirt road vote counted.

 

[ZiprHead]

The voices of the rural people in states that have large dense urban centers are frequently completely fucking ignored by their state legislatures. And I mean completely.

Ignored while we have the electoral college in effect. Doesn't seem to work quite like what you are arguing for.

 

[Toni]

If either TX or FL had gone blue, nobody would have given a damn about what Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota or Oregon wanted.

It’s just easier to pick on the smaller states. I find that cowardly.

But they didn't.

Similarly, if all those little states with the outsized EC voting power had been part of the Nationalpopularvote coalition, abortion wouldn't be illegal either.

So what? You Minnesotans protected your water rights and women across the country lost their reproduction rights. I guess we can't have everything.
Tom

Dafuck?

In essence, what you are saying is that states like Fl and Tx, who are absolutely racing to see who can take us into third world status the fastest have no culpability—-but Minnesota—which went blue nationally and statewide—and protected abortion really gets….somehow let the world down.

No: You only want to go after the people whose voice you think should not count if it differs from your will.

 

[Toni]

If either TX or FL had gone blue, nobody would have given a damn about what Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota or Oregon wanted.

EXACTLY!!! Yes, that is what I’m talking about.


They didn’t turn blue, and so the outsize votes of Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota or Oregon and the degraded votesize of NY and CA influence the election. Because if all of the American people who happen to live in California and New York had their votes counted equally, we would not have needed either TX or Florida, because the bulwark of Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota or Oregon wouldn’t have left him close enough.


Exactly, yes. Thank you.


I honestly don’t get this idea that “my vote should have twice (or four times!) as much influence in the presidential election as yours - because I live on a dirt road!”


And again, millions of Texans, Californians, Pennsylvnians and New Yorkers live on dirt roads, and I am no less worthy that a Wyomingite to have my dirt road vote counted.

I don’t live on a dirt road. I live in the middle of a very small ‘city’ in a riral part of a midwestern state. My county does have plenty of dirt roads, though and people who want to keep ‘em that way. Not necessarily those arch religious conservatives you mentioned, either, although some are and some are pretty darn left.

In essence what you are saying is that it is fair and right and just for high density population centers to impose their will on everybody and only the less densely populated areas will be called out for daring to stand up for what they think is right.

TX and Fl are welcome to drag the entire nation into a sewer because they’ve got too many people.

You are like the middle schooler who expects a first grader to give up their seat on the bus because it’s what the middle schooler wants to sit since another middle schooler is already taking the best seat in the bus,

 

[TomC]

In essence, what you are saying is that states like Fl and Tx, who are absolutely racing to see who can take us into third world status the fastest have no culpability—-but Minnesota—which went blue nationally and statewide—and protected abortion really gets….somehow let the world down.

I said none of those things.

I'm saying that the current system resulted in President Trump.

A free and fair presidential election, in 2016, would have resulted in President Clinton.

You can misrepresent me as much as you want, but that's my bottom line.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

This urban/rural thing is a red herring anyway, as urban-dwellers dominate the vote in every state. It is therefore not giving "more votes to rural people" to weight the vote in favor of certain states. It's only favoring certain states with relatively low populations, which is not the same thing. More rural people are hurt by the College than are helped by it, since most rural people, by the numbers, live in states that the College disenfranchises. They are indeed a numerical minority, around 18% of the national population, and no voting scheme will ever give them equal representation to city dwellers. The mathematics of giving 20% of the country 50% of the vote simply do not work out.

 

[Toni]

This urban/rural thing is a red herring anyway, as urban-dwellers dominate the vote in every state. It is therefore not giving "more votes to rural people" to weight the vote in favor of certain states. It's only favoring certain states with relatively low populations, which is not the same thing. More rural people are hurt by the College than are helped by it, since most rural people, by the numbers, live in states that the College disenfranchises. They are indeed a numerical minority, around 18% of the national population, and no voting scheme will ever give them equal representation to city dwellers. The mathematics of giving 20% of the country 50% of the vote simply do not work out.

Then it is a very good thing we don’t do that, isn’t it?

What we do is allocate sufficient weight to stAtes with high populations that it takes only 9 states to determine the court one of the presidential elections. If a majority in each of those states votes for the same candidate.

I don’t think that’s right, either.

 

[ZiprHead]

Biden has a plan to extend broadband internet to rural areas. Every Republican voted against it. I don't think your rural problems are fixed with the EC.

 

[Elixir]

This urban/rural thing is a red herring anyway, as urban-dwellers dominate the vote in every state. It is therefore not giving "more votes to rural people" to weight the vote in favor of certain states. It's only favoring certain states with relatively low populations, which is not the same thing. More rural people are hurt by the College than are helped by it, since most rural people, by the numbers, live in states that the College disenfranchises. They are indeed a numerical minority, around 18% of the national population, and no voting scheme will ever give them equal representation to city dwellers. The mathematics of giving 20% of the country 50% of the vote simply do not work out.

Then it is a very good thing we don’t do that, isn’t it?

What we do is allocate sufficient weight to stAtes with high populations that it takes only 9 states to determine the court one of the presidential elections. If a majority in each of those states votes for the same candidate.

I don’t think that’s right, either.

Would it be “right” if there was only one State? How would you determine equitably inequitable representation, without State lines as a crutch?

If that’s a problem as a whole, I don‘t see how capriciously drawing lines outlining disproportionate representation regions helps the situation.

I think popular vote for the presidency would be a good thing overall. I just prefer the notion of tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority, if some group is inevitably going to be tyrannical. This puts me at odds with Republicans.

 

[Rhea]

My voice is dwarfed with respect to the voices of those living in major urban centers with respect to legislation that will govern my entire state.

Then rural issues are real and reasonable (well until they close the library, and refuse to let the Fraternal Order of Eagles open a private club because they might be Muslims) and are argued in the state houses.

If a rural town like mine tries to say, “hey we want all 80- miles of our roads paved by the state, even though there are only 900 houses,” then it derserves to be shot down and being a minority does not entitle us to that.

In essence what you are saying is that it is fair and right and just for

I am saying that it is right and just for every voting citizen of the USA to have an equal impct on the election. Popular vote - nationwide.

That way the rural people in Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Florida and California can all band together to advocate for rural things.

 

[Toni]

I prefer no tyranny.

What I think is that this conversation would not be happening here if Clinton had won in 2016. Which is funny in a way because if memory serves, at least one person in this thread blamed Clinton’s loss not on the EC but on her ‘weak campaign.’

 

[Rhea]

Toni,

When you wonder how the small states with 3x voting power are possibly harming us in larger states with diluted power, don’t you also have to answer ask, “and if they can’t harm us, then how are we harming them?” What do they lose? Because unless we stand to gaining something, they don’t stand to lose anything.

A minority of people with extremist views have gotten their views into the courts. And you think, “They deserve it! Because of their Wyomingness!”

Why. Why should extremists get to stack our courts against the whole nation?

 

[TomC]

What I think is that this conversation would not be happening here if Clinton had won in 2016.

The Nationalpopularvote.com effort started long before the 2016 election or the current iteration of IIDB.

Having stalled for awhile, this thread began when another state added to it.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Heh. I married me a city boy —from NYC, as a matter of fact. Now, after 45 years of marriage and more than 30 of those years in a small city surrounded by farmland…. He can correctly identify corn growing in the field,provided it is tall enough, sheep, cows and horses from the car as we drive past. We’re working on soybeans. I was impressed the other day when he recognized a farmer was doing an early cutting of hay. That was a first! We even talked a little about the species of hay and advantages, etc. depending on the animal it’s intended to feed. He’s coming along.

City folks may have heard of farms but they mostly have either very romantic ideas of farm life or are completely clueless as to any of the issues.

I lived on the edge of large cities for 11 years. I watched the news, listened to people talk. They had heard of farms but that’s about as far as it went. I doubt very many are aware that cows have more than one stomach or how much manure one puts out or how long it takes to get a hog or a cow to market, or a crop of anything, for that matter. Although the popularity of farmer’s markets and the eat local movement ts have improved upon that.

Few people know the details of industries other than their own. Farming is an industry.

Point?

My post was a counter to the pinion that urbanites knew anything about farming. Mostly, they don’t. A depresssing number of people never consider where their food comes from, aside from some store.

You seem to regard it as a problem that people don't have domain knowledge in an industry other than their own when the industry in question is farming.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's plenty of stuff urbanites are more familiar with than ruralites, in general.

Sure. But this makes it sound like you think there are NOT things that ruralites are more familiar with than urbanites.

I'm a solid suburbanite, because I need to be within travel distance of my employer. Given my preferences, I'd be out in the boonies with no neighbors in sight. I like privacy, freedom, wildlife, space, and solitude. I dislike crowds, tall buildings, traffic, pollution, and the tendency of city-dwellers to think that restaurants and cafes are "culture".

Mostly, I have found that people who view themselves as urbanites seem to think that they're better than ruralites in just about every way. They tend to be condescending toward people who live in rural areas, they tend to look down on them. And I find that extremely distasteful and irritating. I have found that people who live in rural areas tend to be a bit more humble, they value experience and know-how more than just education - but they don't disparage education either. They are often distrustful of urbanites.

The problem is that there is a very real trend of those of higher intelligence moving to the cities for better job opportunities. Note your own position--while you prefer rural you live suburban because that's where the jobs are.

 

[Toni]

Heh. I married me a city boy —from NYC, as a matter of fact. Now, after 45 years of marriage and more than 30 of those years in a small city surrounded by farmland…. He can correctly identify corn growing in the field,provided it is tall enough, sheep, cows and horses from the car as we drive past. We’re working on soybeans. I was impressed the other day when he recognized a farmer was doing an early cutting of hay. That was a first! We even talked a little about the species of hay and advantages, etc. depending on the animal it’s intended to feed. He’s coming along.

City folks may have heard of farms but they mostly have either very romantic ideas of farm life or are completely clueless as to any of the issues.

I lived on the edge of large cities for 11 years. I watched the news, listened to people talk. They had heard of farms but that’s about as far as it went. I doubt very many are aware that cows have more than one stomach or how much manure one puts out or how long it takes to get a hog or a cow to market, or a crop of anything, for that matter. Although the popularity of farmer’s markets and the eat local movement ts have improved upon that.

Few people know the details of industries other than their own. Farming is an industry.

Point?

My post was a counter to the pinion that urbanites knew anything about farming. Mostly, they don’t. A depresssing number of people never consider where their food comes from, aside from some store.

You seem to regard it as a problem that people don't have domain knowledge in an industry other than their own when the industry in question is farming.

You’re partially correct. I have a problem with people making decisions regarding issues and industries of which they have no understanding. I have a problem with people having no respect for other people’s way of life and are patronizing or contemptuous towards them.

For example: I have little knowledge or understanding of IT, but I respect that industry and the people who work in it.

 

[Elixir]

I prefer no tyranny.

Me too. No tyranny, no fascism and everyone gets a pony.
The problem REALLY is that we don't have 350 million ponies to give everyone, nor do we have the capacity to clean up after 350 million ponies.

You seem to regard it as a problem that people don't have domain knowledge in an industry other than their own when the industry in question is farming.

Yes. Food shelter and clothing are different from say, making movies or manufacturing airplanes. I'm not sure what level "domain knowledge" is but I think everyone should have a basic understanding of what directly keeps them alive. When they don't, I think that's a problem.

 

[Toni]

I prefer no tyranny.

Me too. No tyranny, no fascism and everyone gets a pony.
The problem REALLY is that we don't have 350 million ponies to give everyone, nor do we have the capacity to clean up after 350 million ponies.

You seem to regard it as a problem that people don't have domain knowledge in an industry other than their own when the industry in question is farming.

Yes. Food shelter and clothing are different from say, making movies or manufacturing airplanes. I'm not sure what level "domain knowledge" is but I think everyone should have a basic understanding of what directly keeps them alive. When they don't, I think that's a problem.

I think k that we DO have the. capacity
to eliminate much more tyranny than we currently tolerate.

 

[Elixir]

I think k that we DO have the. capacity
to eliminate much more tyranny than we currently tolerate.

I think I agree, but am having a bit of trouble parsing that statement.

 

[Gospel]

Heh. I married me a city boy —from NYC, as a matter of fact. Now, after 45 years of marriage and more than 30 of those years in a small city surrounded by farmland…. He can correctly identify corn growing in the field,provided it is tall enough, sheep, cows and horses from the car as we drive past. We’re working on soybeans. I was impressed the other day when he recognized a farmer was doing an early cutting of hay. That was a first! We even talked a little about the species of hay and advantages, etc. depending on the animal it’s intended to feed. He’s coming along.

City folks may have heard of farms but they mostly have either very romantic ideas of farm life or are completely clueless as to any of the issues.

I lived on the edge of large cities for 11 years. I watched the news, listened to people talk. They had heard of farms but that’s about as far as it went. I doubt very many are aware that cows have more than one stomach or how much manure one puts out or how long it takes to get a hog or a cow to market, or a crop of anything, for that matter. Although the popularity of farmer’s markets and the eat local movement ts have improved upon that.

Few people know the details of industries other than their own. Farming is an industry.

Point?

My post was a counter to the pinion that urbanites knew anything about farming. Mostly, they don’t. A depresssing number of people never consider where their food comes from, aside from some store.

You seem to regard it as a problem that people don't have domain knowledge in an industry other than their own when the industry in question is farming.

You’re partially correct. I have a problem with people making decisions regarding issues and industries of which they have no understanding. I have a problem with people having no respect for other people’s way of life and are patronizing or contemptuous towards them.

For example: I have little knowledge or understanding of IT, but I respect that industry and the people who work in it.

Christians just happen to consider themselves experts on Christ and expect us to let them decide how the values of Christ will influence America's laws and culture.

Sometimes non expert opinions are needed.