Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[San Lumen]

Again who cares? You get the most votes you should be victorious. Lets apply the same principle to all statewide elections too. You would make it almost impossible for candidates of a certain political party to win. Why should the votes of everyone no matter where they live be counted equally? Again I use the example of my state. A candidate can win by ranking up a big margin in my city (the largest in the state) and several upstate and be elected. The same goes for other states.

Why should my vote count less than someone on a farm and be shafted out of its fair share of representatives? Do you not believe in one man one vote? As Chief Justice Earl Warren said in Reynolds v Sims: Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." You disagree with that?

Because I want a system where everyone has their voice heard. If I lived in the country I wouldn't want people in cities who live different lives than I do deciding things for me. I want a system where people who live in rural areas or smaller states don't get their voices drowned out by people who live in urban areas or larger states. I don't want fairness. I want liberty. I want republicanism and federalism.

So tell me how would you reform the system then? Make it so a city dweller's vote counts less than someone on a farm or small town? A large city gets less representation than a rural county? How is making certain peoples votes count less many of whom are non white democratic or fair?

[Telconi]

That's how it is now, only one political party wins statewide. Our Senate race was literally between two Democrats. It's so heavily controlled by one party that people of that party get into feuds over which one of them gets to screw us first. They don't worry about their ideas getting challenged, they know it'll pass, they just want to be the one to pass it. That, is unfair to the millions of Californians who have no desire to be squashed by these policies.

California confirmed one party commie state.

It seriously is...

[Nazeroth]

Because I want a system where everyone has their voice heard. If I lived in the country I wouldn't want people in cities who live different lives than I do deciding things for me. I want a system where people who live in rural areas or smaller states don't get their voices drowned out by people who live in urban areas or larger states. I don't want fairness. I want liberty. I want republicanism and federalism.

Currently there are only ~13 states that ever get heard under EC. The rest are ignored as "safe". These 13 aren't even particularly rural.

heres the problem for example

Gun Control

California bases it's extremly shitty gun control on Urban areas and applies it to the rural ones.

they say things like "oh we need to get guns off the streets etc etc etc"

but where is all the gun crime? in the cities, and the rural areas have to be subject to their shitty laws because of it.

[San Lumen]

Currently there are only ~13 states that ever get heard under EC. The rest are ignored as "safe". These 13 aren't even particularly rural.

heres the problem for example

Gun Control

California bases it's extremly shitty gun control on Urban areas and applies it to the rural ones.

they say things like "oh we need to get guns off the streets etc etc etc"

but where is all the gun crime? in the cities, and the rural areas have to be subject to their shitty laws because of it.

Well they have more representatives because they have more voters. Thats how democracy works. If the rural areas who have less voters got more representation then a urban area and can out vote them thats neither fair nor democratic.

[Telconi]

heres the problem for example

Gun Control

California bases it's extremly shitty gun control on Urban areas and applies it to the rural ones.

they say things like "oh we need to get guns off the streets etc etc etc"

but where is all the gun crime? in the cities, and the rural areas have to be subject to their shitty laws because of it.

Well they have more representatives because they have more voters. Thats how democracy works. If the rural areas who have less voters got more representation then a urban area and can out vote them thats neither fair nor democratic.

It's democratic, but it sure as hell isn't fair.

[Galloism]

California confirmed one party commie state.

It seriously is...

Seems to be working. If California were a country, it would be #6 in the world in GDP, nestled comfortably between the United Kingdom and France.

[Kravanica]

Because I want a system where everyone has their voice heard. If I lived in the country I wouldn't want people in cities who live different lives than I do deciding things for me. I want a system where people who live in rural areas or smaller states don't get their voices drowned out by people who live in urban areas or larger states. I don't want fairness. I want liberty. I want republicanism and federalism.

And so the urban votes are drowned out by the rurals.
How about we just don't drown out people?

Not necessarily.

[Astrolinium]

Currently there are only ~13 states that ever get heard under EC. The rest are ignored as "safe". These 13 aren't even particularly rural.

heres the problem for example

Gun Control

California bases it's extremly shitty gun control on Urban areas and applies it to the rural ones.

they say things like "oh we need to get guns off the streets etc etc etc"

but where is all the gun crime? in the cities, and the rural areas have to be subject to their shitty laws because of it.

So the rural areas should be free to declare guns for all and watch crime rates in the cities skyrocket? Besides, aside from maybe scaring off wild animals, a rural dweller has no more reason to own a gun than a city dweller does.

[Kravanica]

Because I want a system where everyone has their voice heard. If I lived in the country I wouldn't want people in cities who live different lives than I do deciding things for me. I want a system where people who live in rural areas or smaller states don't get their voices drowned out by people who live in urban areas or larger states. I don't want fairness. I want liberty. I want republicanism and federalism.

If you wanted everyone to have their voice heard, you'd be in favor of mixed proportional representation in the house.

Who says I'm not?

[Telconi]

It seriously is...

Seems to be working. If California were a country, it would be #6 in the world in GDP, nestled comfortably between the United Kingdom and France.

If California were a country it would collapse

[Nazeroth]

heres the problem for example

Gun Control

California bases it's extremly shitty gun control on Urban areas and applies it to the rural ones.

they say things like "oh we need to get guns off the streets etc etc etc"

but where is all the gun crime? in the cities, and the rural areas have to be subject to their shitty laws because of it.

Well they have more representatives because they have more voters. Thats how democracy works. If the rural areas who have less voters got more representation then a urban area and can out vote them thats neither fair nor democratic.

So basically this is the Hunger games and places like the Capital should determine the future of the other lesser areas...

[Kravanica]

Because I want a system where everyone has their voice heard. If I lived in the country I wouldn't want people in cities who live different lives than I do deciding things for me. I want a system where people who live in rural areas or smaller states don't get their voices drowned out by people who live in urban areas or larger states. I don't want fairness. I want liberty. I want republicanism and federalism.

So tell me how would you reform the system then? Make it so a city dweller's vote counts less than someone on a farm or small town? A large city gets less representation than a rural county? How is making certain peoples votes count less many of whom are non white democratic or fair?

Why would I want to? It's working exactly as it is supposed to. The only real reform I could think of would be to add more electors.

[Alvecia]

Currently there are only ~13 states that ever get heard under EC. The rest are ignored as "safe". These 13 aren't even particularly rural.

heres the problem for example

Gun Control

California bases it's extremly shitty gun control on Urban areas and applies it to the rural ones.

they say things like "oh we need to get guns off the streets etc etc etc"

but where is all the gun crime? in the cities, and the rural areas have to be subject to their shitty laws because of it.

Meanwhile, elsewhere the rural areas lobby hard against gun control, and applies that to the urban areas where gun crime is an issue.
Either way, someone is getting shafted.

[Targovia]

"White, landowning, Christian men"
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You're killing me Nilla. Most Americans are Catholic or Protestant.
Yes, the majority of the landowning citizens of the us are White, because they are the majority, this is the case in black majority countries, asian majoritiy countries, etc.

And what does being a man have to do with it? Women can under US law own land, as much as any other man, thanks to a law passed in 1839. Even before that women owned land. This comes off as being blatantly sexist.

I think you misunderstood me.
In order to vote in the 18th century, you had to be white.
In order to vote in the 18th century, you had to be male.
In order to vote in the 18th century, you had to own land.
In order to vote in the 18th century, you had to be Christian.
I'm not being sexist, I'm not being racist, I'm not discriminating against anyone's religion. I'm stating facts.
And the fact is that "democracy" as the Founding Fathers outlined it excluded the overwhelming majority of the populace.

And you still have yet to prove the electoral college is proper representation.

Many rich women voted in several elections because they owned property.

In particular, allow me to point this out to you. Women in britain for example, could vote in parliamentary elections because they owned property. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... -1918.html

The same was the case in the US. http://www.history.com/news/the-state-w ... -amendment Granted, I could only find it in one state, but it's still there. I'm sure that women were allowed to vote in other states as well, provided they owned land of sufficient wealth.

[Galloism]

If you wanted everyone to have their voice heard, you'd be in favor of mixed proportional representation in the house.

Who says I'm not?

Oh you are?

Thought I had brought that up to you before and you poo pooed the idea. If you didn't, I apologize. Getting old makes you forgetful.

[Astrolinium]

Seems to be working. If California were a country, it would be #6 in the world in GDP, nestled comfortably between the United Kingdom and France.

If California were a country it would collapse

Says who? Have you popped over into a parallel universe and seen it? Or is that just your gut feeling based on political views you find yourself unable to adequately defend?

[Telconi]

heres the problem for example

Gun Control

California bases it's extremly shitty gun control on Urban areas and applies it to the rural ones.

they say things like "oh we need to get guns off the streets etc etc etc"

but where is all the gun crime? in the cities, and the rural areas have to be subject to their shitty laws because of it.

So the rural areas should be free to declare guns for all and watch crime rates in the cities skyrocket? Besides, aside from maybe scaring off wild animals, a rural dweller has no more reason to own a gun than a city dweller does.

"Scaring off wild animals" ... You seriously have never lived in a sparsely populated area have you? If you had, you'd realize that these "wild animals" are serious threats to people's lives, health, and economic stability.

[San Lumen]

Well they have more representatives because they have more voters. Thats how democracy works. If the rural areas who have less voters got more representation then a urban area and can out vote them thats neither fair nor democratic.

It's democratic, but it sure as hell isn't fair.

So what would you do have their votes count less and they get less representation then a rural county? And therefor votes of many people who are likely non white count less as well? Tell me how thats fair or democratic?

[The Emerald Legion]

It seriously is...

Seems to be working. If California were a country, it would be #6 in the world in GDP, nestled comfortably between the United Kingdom and France.

Until you factor in the part where they have no water and would have to pay through the nose if not part of the USA for other things.

[Kravanica]

heres the problem for example

Gun Control

California bases it's extremly shitty gun control on Urban areas and applies it to the rural ones.

they say things like "oh we need to get guns off the streets etc etc etc"

but where is all the gun crime? in the cities, and the rural areas have to be subject to their shitty laws because of it.

So the rural areas should be free to declare guns for all and watch crime rates in the cities skyrocket? Besides, aside from maybe scaring off wild animals, a rural dweller has no more reason to own a gun than a city dweller does.

The police response time in a city is significantly shorter than it is in the countryside. Rural dwellers oftentimes need guns for safety.

[Telconi]

If California were a country it would collapse

Says who? Have you popped over into a parallel universe and seen it? Or is that just your gut feeling based on political views you find yourself unable to adequately defend?

It has as much basis as "If it were an independent country it would be #6 in GDP"

[Galloism]

Seems to be working. If California were a country, it would be #6 in the world in GDP, nestled comfortably between the United Kingdom and France.

If California were a country it would collapse

Possibly. As I understand, it has both a water and electricity problem.

However, you could make similar arguments about almost every state.

[Kravanica]

Who says I'm not?

Oh you are?

Thought I had brought that up to you before and you poo pooed the idea. If you didn't, I apologize. Getting old makes you forgetful.

Don't recall you ever bringing it up to me.

[Telconi]

It's democratic, but it sure as hell isn't fair.

So what would you do have their votes count less and they get less representation then a rural county? And therefor votes of many people who are likely non white count less as well? Tell me how thats fair or democratic?

I didn't say that, it doesn't do any good to judge your own ideas, especially when those ideas have no bearing on my ideas.

[San Lumen]

So tell me how would you reform the system then? Make it so a city dweller's vote counts less than someone on a farm or small town? A large city gets less representation than a rural county? How is making certain peoples votes count less many of whom are non white democratic or fair?

Why would I want to? It's working exactly as it is supposed to. The only real reform I could think of would be to add more electors.

Clearly its not if your saying the votes of city dwellers should count less than those in urban areas and should have less representation and the candidate who gets more land area is the one who should be victorious.