2030 apportionment numbers and 2032 EC map - GOP won’t need any blue wall states

[Big Blitz]

This is why they’re flooding AZ NV and GA with illegals.  
 

 

Obviously it shouldn't be taken for granted AZ GA or NV go as red as Florida.  
 

But I like their chances.  It was thought Florida would go blue permanently after 2000. 
 

 

Anyway, our 50 separate labs continue to tell us people want out of the deep blue ***t holes that know nothing but tax tax tax indoctrinate kids tax tax tax tax regulate tax.  

[ChiGoose]

“Letting the majority of Americans pick their president would be bad because it wouldn’t align with my beliefs. Arcane rules originally built around slavery are a much better system because they make it more likely that my team will win even if a majority of Americans disagree. I am definitely a good guy in this story.”

[Big Blitz]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

“Letting the majority of Americans pick their president would be bad because it wouldn’t align with my beliefs. Arcane rules originally built around slavery are a much better system because they make it more likely that my team will win even if a majority of Americans disagree. I am definitely a good guy in this story.”

 

Arcane rules - these rules (republicanism) are imbedded in our Constitution because the Founders understood plus one democracy is destined for failure.  Checks and balances, limited government, and yes the electoral college are in and of themselves checks against tyranny.  
 

 

 

It brings a smile to my face knowing you’ve already got this “excuse” ready to go for November.  It’s been discussed on left wing Twitter for the last several days - since her disaster “interview” on CNN 
 

But I’m not sure she’s winning the popular vote anyway.   

[Tommy Callahan]

Domestic migration shows people fleeing blue states and districts.  So they are doing desperate things to keep their electoral. Attack the EC, promote federalism over states rights.    It's all tied to the same fact.  In the big picture it's nuts they want to force the nation into the policies people are fleeing from.  

 

 

Edited September 2 by Tommy Callahan

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[ChiGoose]

6 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Arcane rules - these rules (republicanism) are imbedded in our Constitution because the Founders understood plus one democracy is destined for failure.  Checks and balances, limited government, and yes the electoral college are in and of themselves checks against tyranny.  
 

 

 

It brings a smile to my face knowing you’ve already got this “excuse” ready to go for November.  It’s been discussed on left wing Twitter for the last several days - since her disaster “interview” on CNN 
 

But I’m not sure she’s winning the popular vote anyway.   

 

Couple of points on this:

1. The Electoral College was created as a compromise to slave states. As such, it's been outdated for 150+ years
2. The ostensible purpose of the EC was that the electors would serve as a check against the will of the people, voting for a candidate other than the one who won the popular vote if they felt that candidate was a danger to the country. It obviously does not work like this. Any idea that it's a "check against tyranny" is just wishcasting.
3. The most common argument for it is that it gives the small states power. This is demonstrably false. Were it true, we'd spend every election season focused on the smallest states such as Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and the Dakotas. Instead, we're talking about Pennsylvania (5th most populous state), Georgia (8th), Michigan (10th), Arizona (14th), Wisconsin (20th), and Nevada (30th).
4. If your support for an electoral system is based on the fact that it helps your team, you're not actually interested in democracy, you want authoritarianism disguised as democracy.
5. Don't know why I would need an "excuse" for November. The race is currently a coin toss. Anyone who says they know definitively how it is going to turn out is just bragging about their ignorance.

[Tiberius]

Of course, the economic growth in southern states is attracting many non-Conservative voters to those places. Ga, Tx, Nc and even SC will be in play for the Dems going forward

[Tommy Callahan]

They attack the EC cause they desperately want federal power and despise states rights. 

 

Expected, as the states losing the most people and tax money are dark blue.  

 

Direct democracy is always regressive to the minority. 

 

See the reign of terror after the French revolution for an example. 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

Tommy Eyerolls sticks to the script.
 

Do NOT engage on the actual arguments. Do NOT inquire about what someone actually advocates for. For that is the path to revealing you are incapable of critical thought. 
 

DO throw out eyerolls. DO make a bunch of strawman arguments. DO follow the talking points. For that is how you feel superior despite adding no insight or value to the conversation. 

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Couple of points on this:

1. The Electoral College was created as a compromise to slave states. As such, it's been outdated for 150+ years

 

Not true.  It was created as a compromise between letting the congress or the people elect the POTUS

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

1. The ostensible purpose of the EC was that the electors would serve as a check against the will of the people, voting for a candidate other than the one who won the popular vote if they felt that candidate was a danger to the country. It obviously does not work like this. Any idea that it's a "check against tyranny" is just wishcasting.

Very rich considering this is now 2 elections in a row your “machine” has picked your nominee, doesn’t let it talk to the press, and you don’t care.  
 

Massive hypocrites 

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

1. The most common argument for it is that it gives the small states power. This is demonstrably false. Were it true, we'd spend every election season focused on the smallest states such as Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and the Dakotas. Instead, we're talking about Pennsylvania (5th most populous state), Georgia (8th), Michigan (10th), Arizona (14th), Wisconsin (20th), and Nevada (30th).

If the other way around they’d only campaign in NYC, L.A., Chicago, and several other urban areas.  
 

70 percent of the country would never ever meet the nominee.  
 

The system makes every square inch of this country and the people who live there, matter.   
 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

1. If your support for an electoral system is based on the fact that it helps your team, you're not actually interested in democracy, you want authoritarianism disguised as democracy.

Again, this coming from the party of Superdelegates and Joe - it’s the easy way or the hard way Biden.  
 

 

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Of course, the economic growth in southern states is attracting many non-Conservative voters to those places. Ga, Tx, Nc and even SC will be in play for the Dems going forward

 

As is the blue wall and soon - New York State.   

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:

Not true.  It was created as a compromise between letting the congress or the people elect the POTUS

 

The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power (since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors) and by small states who increased their power due to the minimum of three electors per state.[31] The compromise was reached after other proposals, including to get a direct election for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states.[31] Levitsky and Ziblatt describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected."

***

Both during slavery and also after slavery, well into the 20th century in fact, the states of the South stood firmly in opposition to the adoption of a national popular vote. The South was the bulwark of opposition during the period of slavery, of course, because slave-holding states received extra electoral votes thanks to the three-fifths clause. White Southerners, thus, gained added influence in the Electoral College, and if they had switched to a national popular vote, they would have lost that influence.

***

In 1787, roughly 40 percent of people living in the Southern states were enslaved Black people, who couldn’t vote. James Madison from Virginia—where enslaved people accounted for 60 percent of the population—knew that either a direct presidential election, or one with electors divvied up according to free white residents only, wouldn’t fly in the South.  “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States,” said Madison, “and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”  The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which three-fifths of the enslaved Black population would be counted toward allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46).

 

Quote

Very rich considering this is now 2 elections in a row your “machine” has picked your nominee, doesn’t let it talk to the press, and you don’t care.  
 

Massive hypocrites 

 

You seem to be confusing how parties work with how elections work. There are no provisions in the Constitution for parties nominating their candidates because the Founders did not anticipate political parties (Washington famously argued against them in his farewell address). If you have a problem with party officials selecting the nominees, then you have a problem with basically every president before Nixon.

 

You're also making a bunch of assumptions about me personally despite you not knowing me. It may come as a surprise to you, but I have no influence on how the Democratic Party selects its presidential nominee, nor do I agree with every decision it makes. You just seem to like to result to strawmen and assumptions because it's easier than dealing with reality. 

 

Quote

If the other way around they’d only campaign in NYC, L.A., Chicago, and several other urban areas.  
 

70 percent of the country would never ever meet the nominee.  
 

The system makes every square inch of this country and the people who live there, matter.   

 

The idea that the electoral college makes every square inch of the country matter is ridiculous. Where is the breathless coverage of both candidates duking it out in Fargo or Cheyenne? Occasionally candidates travel to non-competitive states to boost local candidates, but there's no strategy of winning the election that is going to invest campaign resources in Wyoming, Hawaii, or Vermont, etc.

 

Those places do not matter in presidential elections because of the EC. The millions of Republicans who vote in California and New York do not matter. California had more Trump voters than any other state in 2020 and none of them mattered, thanks to the EC.

 

While my point has been more about how the EC is bad than an advocation for the national popular vote (which would be an improvement but doesn't solve the problems we're seeing), were the popular vote to decide the election, it would put *more* people and places in play. Any candidate who focused just on the big cities would lose because not only are the biggest cities just a small portion of the overall population, ignoring the majority of Americans who don't live in big cities would alienate them from the majority of voters.

 

The current battleground states of PA, GA, MI, AZ, WI, and NV comprise of 15% of the US population. So even your fear of only 30% of the country mattering would be twice the current situation with the EC. I'm surprised you're not advocating eliminating the EC given that.

 

Quote

Again, this coming from the party of Superdelegates and Joe - it’s the easy way or the hard way Biden.  

 

Again, that's irrelevant from the conversation around the EC and I don't have any say over how the Democratic Party picks it's nominee. I just have to live with the choices on hand.

[RiotAct]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Couple of points on this:

1. The Electoral College was created as a compromise to slave states. As such, it's been outdated for 150+ years
2. The ostensible purpose of the EC was that the electors would serve as a check against the will of the people, voting for a candidate other than the one who won the popular vote if they felt that candidate was a danger to the country. It obviously does not work like this. Any idea that it's a "check against tyranny" is just wishcasting.
3. The most common argument for it is that it gives the small states power. This is demonstrably false. Were it true, we'd spend every election season focused on the smallest states such as Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and the Dakotas. Instead, we're talking about Pennsylvania (5th most populous state), Georgia (8th), Michigan (10th), Arizona (14th), Wisconsin (20th), and Nevada (30th).
4. If your support for an electoral system is based on the fact that it helps your team, you're not actually interested in democracy, you want authoritarianism disguised as democracy.
5. Don't know why I would need an "excuse" for November. The race is currently a coin toss. Anyone who says they know definitively how it is going to turn out is just bragging about their ignorance.

those are good points friend, I’d counter #3 though by saying that those states are heavily focused on simply because they could truly go either way on Election Day.  

 

If you calculate how much “electing power” someone living in AK, WY or MT has vs. someone in CA or NY, say, it’s a lot higher.

 

3 EV / 584,000 people = 0.00000514 (Wyoming)

 

28 EV / 19,678,000 people = 0.00000142 (New York)

[Tommy Callahan]

Statist/federalist attacking the EC.  

 

Only the hard left wants the dem policies that are forcing people out of blue states to be promoted on a federal level. 

[ChiGoose]

Tommy Eyerolls always sticking to the script. Typing in those talking points that contribute nothing to anything other than stroking his own ego.

[Tommy Callahan]

Yeah.  Parroting dnc/msm talking points is amazing 

 

Replying in content was horrible.  

 

Dems want their failed policies at the federal level and also promote regressive direct democracy over the EC.  

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

those are good points friend, I’d counter #3 though by saying that those states are heavily focused on simply because they could truly go either way on Election Day.  

 

If you calculate how much “electing power” someone living in AK, WY or MT has vs. someone in CA or NY, say, it’s a lot higher.

 

3 EV / 584,000 people = 0.00000514 (Wyoming)

 

28 EV / 19,678,000 people = 0.00000142 (New York)

 

I actually fully agree with you. The current swing states are just the current swing states. It's been different states in the past, and it'll be different states in the future. But what makes them important in the EC isn't that they are small, it's simply that they could go either way.

 

You could argue that New York was a swing state for most of US history.

1 minute ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Yeah.  Parroting dnc/msm talking points is amazing 

 

Replying in content was horrible.  

 

Dems want their failed policies at the federal level and also promote regressive direct democracy over the EC.  

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate you consistently fulfilling your role here. You could probably save yourself a lot of time by just having a bot randomly post about "MSM", "Dems" and "statists". Wouldn't change much for the rest of us.

[Doc Brown]

The only part of the electoral college system I don't like is I know my vote doesn't matter because I don't live in a swing state.  If you did away with the electoral college though both candidates would just spend all their time and energy in the most populous cities in America.  Too many people living in smaller towns would be ignored.

[Orlando Buffalo]

14 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

“Letting the majority of Americans pick their president would be bad because it wouldn’t align with my beliefs. Arcane rules originally built around slavery are a much better system because they make it more likely that my team will win even if a majority of Americans disagree. I am definitely a good guy in this story.”

Are you actually arguing the electoral college was based on slavery? That is so dumb because in 1789 they did not worry about whether a black man would ever vote. They did it because they wanted to make sure it was impossible for someone to find support from one or two large areas at the expense of the rest of country. They wanted a president for all people.

[ChiGoose]

10 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

The only part of the electoral college system I don't like is I know my vote doesn't matter because I don't live in a swing state.  If you did away with the electoral college though both candidates would just spend all their time and energy in the most populous cities in America.  Too many people living in smaller towns would be ignored.

 

I'm honestly not sure that's true. The top 10 cities combined represent just 8% of the US population. The top 20 are only 10%. Even if you go to the top 50 cities, you're only at 15% (coincidentally, about how much of the US population lives in the current swing states). A city-focused campaign would ignore the vast majority of the country.

 

Plus, urban media markets are incredibly expensive. Campaign ad dollars go a lot further in rural areas than they do in cities.

 

I remember back in the 2016 election when Trump came to Rochester. It was a big deal because presidential candidates don't normally go there. In the end, it didn't do anything for him electorally since NY isn't a swing state. But under the popular vote, it would have been cheaper for him to target areas like Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse to pull in the surrounding rural voters than to spend money in Pittsburgh and Philly because he wouldn't be concerned about needing to win PA as a state, just run up the vote in rural areas and smaller cities.

[Doc Brown]

23 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I remember back in the 2016 election when Trump came to Rochester. It was a big deal because presidential candidates don't normally go there. In the end, it didn't do anything for him electorally since NY isn't a swing state. But under the popular vote, it would have been cheaper for him to target areas like Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse to pull in the surrounding rural voters than to spend money in Pittsburgh and Philly because he wouldn't be concerned about needing to win PA as a state, just run up the vote in rural areas and smaller cities.

Didn't he campaign there about a week before the NY Republican primary?