DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

The popular vote means nothing on a national level, as far as electing a President.

They are giving their electors not to the candidate who wins their state, not in a proportional division based on the statewide popular vote, but to the national vote winner. That makes their state vote far less valuable.

What they are trying to do is to influence the Presidential election because 2 Democrat candidates have won the popular vote, and lost the electoral college. Of course, in 2000, Bush won the electoral vote, but Gore won the popular vote.

In 2016 Trump won the electoral college, but Clinton won the popular vote.

In neither case would this have influenced the election one bit.

However, let's say that this has been in effect in 2016, and Trump had won Connecticut by a 95% to 5% margin, but Clinton had won the national popular vote by 12 votes. The electors in Connecticut would have to go to Clinton, despite the intention of the vast majority of the voters in their state. Yes, that is idiotic, and I bet that it comes back to bite them one day.

Now, I am going to bow back out of the political arena again. I really don't feel it's my place to be arguing this kind of stuff anymore. I just wanted to make a statement on the increasing cycles of violence we see in our society, and I did so, so it's now time to retire once more.

we should move to a popular vote system.

i've defended the electoral college but quite honestly, we got a POS POTUS in office, and 60 million people, plus YTown's fence riding ass, got us in such a disgusting situation with our allies, and possibly sold us out to the Russians.

ill take Nixon level corruption over a foreign power putting a puppet into the oval. atleast he's OUR corrupt jackwad, instead of a Russian one.

I'm fine with a popular vote if you allow small states to leave the Union. After all if small states have no say in who the leader is then why should they stay a part of the country. I mean I'll be darned if I will let 10 major cities that I want no part of decide everything for the entire country.

What works in big cities doesn't work so well outside of them. Just like what works in more rural areas doesn't work so well in big cities. It's not just a cultural difference but a structural and operations difference as well. Especially since the big cities tend to suck up all the federal funds and leave rural America to fend for itself.

It's why rurals hate taxes because they know it's not going to benefit them much. It's also why city slickers don't mind taxes as much because they know they will get the most benefit from it.

Then of course you got your upper middle class that gets tired of that high taxation so they move out to rural america but they get scared of the peace and quiet so they ruin it by making some swank suburb in the middle of nowhere. Then they miss all the city conveniences so they tell everyone they need to develop and attract more people so they can justify a walmart to put out all the mom and pop businesses. Then they pat themselves on the back for making the area "civilized" and ruining a perfectly fine area just to create what they ran away from.

I for one enjoy clean air, filled with peace and quiet, neighbors that I actually know and trust, and a street that is not filled with cars hell bent on running me down if my crippled arse walks too slow to cross it.

I mean states with large populations still get a lot more electoral votes as it is but at least it gives smalls states a minimum say in how things are run. You get rid of the electoral college and you have just told all of rural america they have no right to be heard and that is just wrong and evil.

So rural people need a crutch.

So much for picking oneself up by the bootstraps.

No rural America needs a reason to state part of a union that seems to only want to benefit big cities. The reason we became a united states is because of the compromise that allowed smaller states to have a voice. When you take away that voice then you destroy what brought the states together.

It isn't just rural as you put it. Connecticut isn't what I would call rural. His point makes sense and you know it.

You want fairness? Split taxes evenly by county when it comes to federal and keep taxes raised in a county in the same county instead of taking those funds from rural areas to feed the big cities. pfft you want to talk about who needs a crutch? lol get a clue. Big cities drain resources from several counties because they don't sustain themselves.

i was content with leaving this topic alone, but then you had to follow up a emotional post with yet another emotion post.

you want to sit there and talk about a voice, yet the electoral college literally takes away the voice of the majority.

the argument about different states having equal voices use to sound good....right up until i realized that the POTUS is the POTUS no matter how many states exist.

it's the President of the united states, not the president of the united states except including california, or iowa, or texas, etc.

the electoral college allows candidates to manipulate the system, essentially bailing them out of having to go to every state to campaign and win over voters by getting their message out.

so please spare me the fairness crap rhetoric you're trying to push when you support a rigged system.

and then draining resources? big cities are the places people want to move because thats where the jobs are.

it's not our fault the rural people in Appalachia want to be stuck in the past and try to bring back dying industries like coal.

and then on top of that, there's ACTUALLY industries we want to develop that would actually help the rural areas, but again, yall so bigoted, religious, and "conservative" that you dont want to change, then start whining like snowflakes when the world starts passing you by.

as a matter of fact, the big cities bring in the most income, that actually supports a lot of rural counties because:

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

take a look at that. most of the states that take in the most federal aid are those good ole boy states. the states with the most conservatives. the red states.

more proof?

For the first time in the nearly 40 years that ERS has been analyzing the geographic distribution of Federal spending, rural areas received more in total per capita Federal funding ($7,473) in fiscal year (FY) 2005 than urban areas ($7,391). This reversal is likely due to changes in the housing market, as many home buyers—particularly in urban areas—opted to use more flexible and risky private-sector mortgages instead of federally insured mortgages in 2005. Between 2004 and 2005, community resource programs, including housing, infrastructure, and business assistance, declined 34 percent in urban areas but only 3 percent in rural areas. Recently, many urban home buyers began using federally backed mortgages again, suggesting that the rural funding advantage may be short lived.

Federal spending in rural communities can have a significant impact on rural economies. However, the amount of spending may be less important as an indicator of its effect than its intended use. For example, while important to the recipients, spending on social services may have less impact on rural economies than an equal amount of spending on basic infrastructure because people are mobile while infrastructure is geographically fixed.

Rural areas received more per capita for human resources, including education, nutrition, training, and social and health services, than urban areas did. These patterns reflect greater percentage shares of elderly, poor, and less educated populations in rural areas.

Rural areas also received more per capita in Federal agricultural and natural resource funds than urban areas did in FY 2005 (the most recent year for which accurate county-level data are available). Activities covered by this funding (agricultural payments, agricultural research and services, forest and land management, and water and recreational resources) tend to be land intensive, and rural communities encompass about 75 percent of the Nation’s land area. But funds from agricultural and natural resource programs were dwarfed by those from income security programs in FY 2005. Income security, including Social Security, Medicare, and other Federal income support, comprised nearly 70 percent of Federal spending in rural areas, far surpassing its 57-percent share in urban areas.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/200...nd-agriculture/

so that means this comment you made...



...is flat out false.

Razor, do me a favor, and dont post until you actually know what the hell you're talking about. i'm tired of having to teach you blind posters the basics before we can even talk about solutions.

you stay on here constantly trashing big cities and the inner cities, despite the FACTS that the big cities are sustaining the rural areas, cause you're too busy having sex with your cousins and whining about the brown illegals to get off your asses and get a damn job.

I disagree with that, in many ways.

I have a feeling you are posting emotionally, and not logically.

But this quote seals it for me:


That speaks volumes, trust me.

and i disagree with you any many ways so nothing is new here.

Let's go a bit further.

You are on record as saying the inner cities only need more money to fix their problems.

Why don't they tax the cities more, to fix their problems? Oh, cause 'they don't have the money' ?

It's always 'we need more money' - and in truth, that goes for cities, counties, schools, states, federal gov't. etc. The 'gov't. of your choice' only needs more money in order to 'fix' the problems.

Always 'more money', and when any of them get more money, they hire more employees and it still doesn't fix the problems- they need just a bit more money.

Cause the cities are constantly growing.

Besides, the students do need more money, but that doesn’t mean a tax increase.

I’ve made the example before on how my school district ignored the trash books and computers that didn’t work, but found a way to renovate the football stadiums in all the districts.

Funny you mention one thing I say and not the other. But we all know why, cause it ruins whatever useless point you’re trying to make.

And it still doesn’t change the fact big cities subsidizes rural counties by in large.

So you can complain all you want, but I posted the facts. Maybe your fellow rural people should get off the meth and get a job. Pick yourself up by the bootstraps, or what dumbass conservative phrases you want to insert.

Your school district ignored the trash books, and computers that didn't work, and instead but instead found ways (money) to renovate the football stadiums in all the districts?

That's interesting. Perhaps your anger should be aimed at the school district? Kinda ruins your point. And you even admit it. "Ya'll" city schools aren't spending the money they get on better education. But 'ya'll' city schools want more money - just like all schools do.

Kinda proves MY point.



Thought you went to a private school for high school?

Oh, your assertion that cities subsidize rural schools? You do know that schools are, for the most part, paid for with local funds, right? The state has some formula that parcels out money based on enrollment, but local school districts are also taxed, based on property tax, etc. Or maybe you didn't know that?

Sorry bud - your next comment - just stupid. Most rural people (and I know you consider us in derogatory terms) have jobs. And yeah, rural areas have the exact same drug problems as.......lemme use YOUR terms 'city folk'.

"Ya'll" city folk aren't paying enough for your own districts, let alone supporting rural areas.

You did your kids a good, by moving to some suburb.

You attacking some 'fellow rural people getting off meth?" STatement?

Speaks volumes about you, and your racism.

what gives you any sort of idea i don't have a problem with the school district?

the entire education system in this country is jacked up from the top down. the fact that you somehow assumed i didn't have a beef with the school district, well, what did you say?

yea, speaks volumes. mainly about your knowledge on the topic whatsoever, or maybe just your overall lack of understanding of how the world works outside of your bubble.

again, you haven't even bothered actually disputing the FACT that big cities subsidize rural counties by in large, which by the way, was the original discussion between Razor and myself that you decided to jump out the rafters for. that tells me that you either already knew that FACT, and thus needed to act triggered over the other parts of my post...

or, you didn't know it (the more likely scenario), and had to stay the course anyway, because its clear as day you have no idea what you're talking about.

so yea, majority rules. the big cities are taking care of the rural counties. the rural counties and red states overall are taking in more federal money than the blue states.

i mean damn, i gotta pay taxes in cuyahoga county on my rentals, and THEN i got to pay property taxes here in lake county.

rural people can't stay out of my pockets. damn takers.