Thread: Democrat nominee decided by super delegates?

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

siggage.

You can't really sig something you said... it's like laughing at your own joke.

Then again, you are the bigdog here.

Not voting because my knowledge of politics is slight at best.

Originally Posted by JBMCW2010

But The electoral college is Bull sniazah too.

I disagree. without the electoral college, small population states are even more worthless than they are now in the national election. Montana, Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming......giving them 3 or 4 electoral college members gives them a louder voice.....disproportionately louder than what they would have by raw population alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

think about it......3 votes in the electoral college of 538 total votes = 0.56% of the vote. Vermont, Alaska, Deleware, Wyoming.....all only have 3 votes, and .56% of the national voice. Wyoming, for example, only has 522830 residents. That's only 0.19% of the national population. The Electoral College thus gives them nearly 3X the "voice" as they would have by population. Texas has 6.3% of the electoral college at 34 votes, but 8.5% of the national population. So.......we lose a bit of "voice" in the national election (about 25%), but that's nothing compared to the 200% increase the 3-vote states get by having the electoral college.

It's the United STATES. States rights and compromises in such matters is why the union exists. If you don't like the electoral college, then you might as well get rid of the senate, too, since it has no basis on population, period. Given that is your objection.....popular votes.....right?

Originally Posted by D0ubl3 Tap

We DOnt need no Water LET THE MOTHER***KER Burn!



P.S. People had days of warning for Katrina. If you live below sea level on the coast and there is a hurricane coming...run, dummy. Survival of the fittest. Keep in mind the city of NO had 8500 busses sitting still and completely lost to flood waters. were they used to evacuate? Nope. The real outrage is to listen to the IPOD wearing Hybrid driven Starbucks junkys point there finger at the commander in chief they voted for, and blame him for everything not because they are informed.. but because its popular.

Lifes tuff.. get a helmet.

I don't blame people for not running. I mean seriously.....did you see the mess for the houston evacuation (something we DIDN'T BLAME FEMA FOR)? I didn't leave......because I didn't feel threatened. People get used to feeling safe and dodging bullets. But that means people get shot everyonce in a while.

Originally Posted by D0ubl3 Tap

The purpose of my comment was to point out How the failure started with the lowest ranking member of city goverment and went all the way to the top.

They live in a "Bowl under sea level." They have had since 1532 when the French colony was completly wiped out due to a hurricane to make preperations.

We had floods here in 1993 that make Katrina look like a drizzle. an area 30 times more massive than the NO area completely flooded. 10,000 homes here in the Kansas city area gone. 2 years later you couldnt even tell except for the areas where the houses all washed out too. So what is the big difference between us here in the midwest and the people down south in NO?

We dont "Expect" the goverement to protect us... thats something each person has to figure out by themselves. And we tend to elect people we can trust... ANd personally I only trust people who have spent more time not being in the news blaming the Feds for there problems and more time making sure we dont need Fed help.

exactly.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by JBMCW2010

But The electoral college is Bull sniazah too.

I disagree. without the electoral college, small population states are even more worthless than they are now in the national election. Montana, Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming......giving them 3 or 4 electoral college members gives them a louder voice.....disproportionately louder than what they would have by raw population alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

think about it......3 votes in the electoral college of 538 total votes = 0.56% of the vote. Vermont, Alaska, Deleware, Wyoming.....all only have 3 votes, and .56% of the national voice. Wyoming, for example, only has 522830 residents. That's only 0.19% of the national population. The Electoral College thus gives them nearly 3X the "voice" as they would have by population. Texas has 6.3% of the electoral college at 34 votes, but 8.5% of the national population. So.......we lose a bit of "voice" in the national election (about 25%), but that's nothing compared to the 200% increase the 3-vote states get by having the electoral college.

It's the United STATES. States rights and compromises in such matters is why the union exists. If you don't like the electoral college, then you might as well get rid of the senate, too, since it has no basis on population, period. Given that is your objection.....popular votes.....right?

yes I agree it gives them a percentage but, how much time do candidates actually spend in those states or discussing those states' issues? they are more concentrated on my birth state of NH or FL or Ohio or Cali. The small states are something where a candidate B goes ok, your going to clearly beat me there so I won't try then candidate A will never return to that state.

See what I mean?

edit but it maybe too late if so I'll cut and paste a new topic

but also don't you want your vote to count? I live in Massachusetts the bluest state in the US of A! If I vote Red then my vote does not count

That because they possess so few votes, the candidates mostly ignore them unless they're desperate, correct?

Originally Posted by JBMCW2010

The small states are something where a candidate B goes ok, your going to clearly beat me there so I won't try then candidate A will never return to that state.

See what I mean?

Sure.....Al gore and john kerry know exactly what you mean, since they lost the election for the same reasons. Add up all the 3, 4, and 5 vote states, and you've got yourself a California, Texas, or NY size of electoral college votes. Fail to compete, or at least try to break even in as many states as possible....focus only on the big ticket states like NY, florida, Texas, and cali.......an unless you take 3/4 of those states, if not all of them, you lose the national election.

I edited this but i think it got missed:

edit but it maybe too late if so I'll cut and paste a new topic

but also don't you want your vote to count? I live in Massachusetts the bluest state in the US of A! If I vote Red then my vote does not count

Originally Posted by Glock

That because they possess so few votes, the candidates mostly ignore them unless they're desperate, correct?

Again...I'm sure Gore and Kerry, and the entire DNC believed that.....prior to losing the 2000 and 2004 elections.

focus on popular vote only......cali....NYC.....detroit....chicago.....m iami.......if that's all you can get...then you lose the national election.

the electoral college is like progressive taxes. They benefit the poor in a much larger proportion than they punish the rich. And though it's nice to say "fair tax" or flat taxes........that's not good for the strength of the union, and back in 1786 or whenever it was....it probably wasn't a good way to convince the small states to join the union with the big states. Why would anyone join a union where they were immediately outvoiced, out voted, and made irrelevant? The electoral college gives them a weighted chance. Still small.....but effective (see 2000 and 2004, or the red state/blue state bush bumper stickers.)