Connecticut passes bill giving electoral votes to presidential candidate who wins popular vote

[Reece]

Small states still get the same number of Senators regardless of population, that's plenty of leverage right there.


I really don't get this idea that your vote should be worth less because you live in a populated area. People seem to buy into this weird right-wing idea that your only a "real American" if you live in some rural area or flyover state.

You don't know what the phrase "I'm leaning more to the latter" means, do you bruh.

I agreed.

I'm not buying into anything. Learn to see the other sides of the debate instead of always reacting emotionally.

The argument is states like California command 55 electoral votes whereas states like Oklahoma have 7. Do away with the electoral college and the voter influence of the smaller states becomes marginalized. Hilary gave no fukks about small states this past election. Switch to a popular vote election and she gives even less fukks. Meaning she'd focus 100% on the major cities and population centers. 10 cities would choose every single President. This is what small states fear. And as for the bolded....so what....people in the major cities get to choose the President while people in small states should be happy get a Senator....you serious breh

 

[acri1]

You don't know what the phrase "I'm leaning more to the latter" means, do you bruh.

I agreed.

I'm not buying into anything. Learn to see the other sides of the debate instead of always reacting emotionally.

The argument is states like California command 55 electoral votes whereas states like Oklahoma have 7. Do away with the electoral college and the voter influence of the smaller states becomes marginalized. Hilary gave no fukks about small states this past election. Switch to a popular vote election and she gives even less fukks. Meaning she'd focus 100% on the major cities and population centers. 10 cities would choose every single President. This is what small states fear. And as for the bolded....so what....people in the major cities get to choose the President while people in small states should be happy get a Senator....you serious breh

Why shouldn't a state with less people have less influence? What's unfair about that?

The idea that Kansas should have as much influence as California when one has far more Americans living there is silly. A popular vote isn't "10 cities" choosing the president it's everyone choosing the president. A person in a small state's vote counts just as much as someone in NYC.

Popular vote is the only fair way to do things, any other way is just making certain people's votes count more.

 

[Reece]

Why shouldn't a state with less people have less influence? What's unfair about that?

The idea that Kansas should have as much influence as California when one has far more Americans living there is silly. A popular vote isn't "10 cities" choosing the president it's everyone choosing the president. A person in a small state's vote counts just as much as someone in NYC.

Quick math session. There's 300 million people in the USA. 50 million live in the Bosh Wash corridor. 10 million in LA. 5 million in SF. 5 million in Seattle. 10 million in Chicago. 5 million in Detroit. 4 million in San Diego. That's almost 1/3 of the population and I've named at most 10-11 major population centers. And these are all heavy liberal areas. So yea....they WILL decide the election. Since you can't look forward. A century ago, white people voted Democrat and blacks voted Republican. shyt can change. What happens if there's some sort of shift that occurs a few decades from now where more whites and Hispanics defect to the right and now blacks and non-black liberals are underrepresented. Without the electoral college to balance things. Now you're the nikka with no voter influence.

 

[acri1]

Quick math session. There's 300 million people in the USA. 50 million live in the Bosh Wash corridor. 10 million in LA. 5 million in SF. 5 million in Seattle. 10 million in Chicago. 5 million in Detroit. 4 million in San Diego. That's almost 1/3 of the population and I've named at most 10-11 major population centers. And these are all heavy liberal areas. So yea....they WILL decide the election. Since you can't look forward. A century ago, white people voted Democrat and blacks voted Republican. shyt can change. What happens if there's some sort of shift that occurs a few decades from now where more whites and Hispanics defect to the right and now blacks and non-black liberals are underrepresented. Without the electoral college to balance things. Now you're the nikka with no voter influence.

Why shouldn't areas with more actual people have more voting power?

If one state has 200,000 people and another state has 15 million, giving them an equal amount of influence isn't "fair" and doesn't balance anything out, all it does is assign geographical preference to one group of people.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Quick math session. There's 300 million people in the USA. 50 million live in the Bosh Wash corridor. 10 million in LA. 5 million in SF. 5 million in Seattle. 10 million in Chicago. 5 million in Detroit. 4 million in San Diego. That's almost 1/3 of the population and I've named at most 10-11 major population centers. And these are all heavy liberal areas. So yea....they WILL decide the election.

1) Why shouldn't the person who wins the most votes decide the election?

2) Let me flip this on it's head, the population of California is 39.54 million and the 5th largest economy IN THE WORLD. Explain to me why they should give a fukk what Idaho wants?

3) The fact that these areas are liberal means what exactly? Can you define liberal for us?

Since you can't look forward. A century ago, white people voted Democrat and blacks voted Republican. shyt can change. What happens if there's some sort of shift that occurs a few decades from now where more whites and Hispanics defect to the right and now blacks and non-black liberals are underrepresented. Without the electoral college to balance things. Now you're the nikka with no voter influence.

A century ago? First of all the party happened as recently as 60 years ago. Secondly, the party flip also involved southern whites and liberal northerners. White folks still split the vote between Democrat and Republican. Hence why you could have Jacob Javitz as a liberal republican from NY and the Kennedy's as liberal democrats. Thirdly, blacks split their vote Democratic or Republican based on which local party machine favored blacks the most. Hence why it wasn't this impossible feat to get democrats to vote for Kennedy or Johnson despite the existence of George Wallace.

 

[Slystallion]

So they would flip the will of their own people based off big states like Cali and New York...doubt this is constitutional

 

[King Static X]

So they would flip the will of their own people based off big states like Cali and New York...doubt this is constitutional

What?

This is why you have that "WOAT" banner

 

[Reece]

Why shouldn't areas with more actual people have more voting power?

If one state has 200,000 people and another state has 15 million, giving them an equal amount of influence isn't "fair" and doesn't balance anything out, all it does is assign geographical preference to one group of people.

1) Why shouldn't the person who wins the most votes decide the election?

2) Let me flip this on it's head, the population of California is 39.54 million and the 5th largest economy IN THE WORLD. Explain to me why they should give a fukk what Idaho wants?

3) The fact that these areas are liberal means what exactly? Can you define liberal for us?

What incentive would states have to remain in the Union if we say the influence of a few large states supersedes everyone else?

Be objective for five seconds. Stop thinking about your own personal interests. Think about the interests of every citizen in America.

One...the Electoral college worked fine (everything has flaws). Obama won just fine. Clinton won just fine. There was some bullshyt with Bush. Hilary loses (some of it being her fault) and now we have to burn everything to the ground. fukk her. Next time don't cheat Bernie in the primaries. Don't be shady. Don't be a corporatist. Tour every city in America, not just Washington and Wall Street. Be personable and likable and try to push through real change, not just continuing the status quo. And she would've won and we would've avoided Trump. But because she didn't we gotta destroy what's been working. Not that thrilled about that.

Two....if we destroyed the Electoral college, states would still control the vote by proxy. It would just shift things unfavorably to the big states. When it comes time to campaign, where are Presidential nominees going to go? They're going to focus on a few big cities. If you're a voter in South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee or Iowa, you can forget ever having a President give a fukk about you because on a cost benefit approach, it wouldn't make sense to focus there. That's not fair. Of course yall don't care because white people come to mind when you think of Middle America & the South. You also don't care about getting rid of the electoral college because right now you think a popular vote benefits democrat voters.................but that's for right now.

Three....Which brings me to my last point. Blacks aren't the main artery of the Democratic Party. We depend on White Liberals and Hispanics to help us elect our officials. Let's imagine a future where more white people decide to vote Republican rather than Democrat. This shouldn't be hard for you to imagine in the Trump era. Let's imagine a future where more Hispanics decide to vote Republican rather than Democrat. This shouldn't be hard to imagine given how Cubans flipped Republican in Miami, and how Hispanics tend to grow conservative as they assimilate and become Americanized. What happens if in the future on a Popular Vote basis, there's more Republicans than Democrats. And you destroyed the electoral college process. Then what

 

[tru_m.a.c]

What incentive would states have to remain in the Union if we say the influence of a few large states supersedes everyone else?

Bro go have several seats

 

[Reece]

Bro go have several seats

Smilies aren’t an argument. We living through a Trump Presidency right now as a result of rural whites being marginalized and your plan is to marginalize them more

And you skipped over all my points. Don’t respond until you respond to them.

 

[Serious]

Bro go have several seats

There's just not enough time in the day to debunk some of these outlandish claims....

 

[Reece]

There's just not enough time in the day to debunk some of these outlandish claims....

Says the nikka that posted 19 times since 10AM this morning

 

[Serious]

Says the nikka that posted 19 times since 10AM this morning

My day is atypical though, I've been on the go since 4am pst. I don't have time to address everything.

 

[acri1]

We living through a Trump Presidency right now as a result of rural whites being marginalized

Whites being marginalized? In America?

Trump is the result of white resentment towards Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[rapbeats]

This is basically the state government telling the people of that that your vote is inconsequential.

If your eligible voters decide a particular candidate, how do you go behind their back and say we going to give our electoral college vote to whoever wins popular vote nationwide. You just shaat on your people.

They are do doing this based on a demographic shift they anticipate will give them Democratic winners from here to infinity. They assume the growing Hispanic population will vote Democratic in the biggest states.



Right you're letting a few states run the rest of the state's like Suge Knight.

I'm a demographic nerd when it comes to population. I almost certain that about 40% of the U.S. population is in the Top 10 largest states.

OH so you saying what just happened this past year and the bush first term didnt look like a handful of flyover states suge knighting the masses?

Here's the truth of the matter. the idea of the electoral college makes sense to give everyone a voice. But when the specific "everyones' voices are so wrong because they refuse to learn anything outside of propaganda(fox news, hannity, limbaugh, banning, and now trump.) Then you have to cut them off. Sorry. The popular vote wins.

PERIOD. IF my guy/gal loses due to this. Oh well. The people voted. if it backfires and a bunch of racist white people end up voting in someone they wanted. it is what it is.