DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Maine Senate passes bill that would give Electoral College votes to winner of national popular vote

I can understand why someone such as yourself would promote just how fair it is for one citizens vote to be worth up to four citizens votes in an area whose overall politics you disagree with. A voter in Wyoming has the same voting power as four voters in New York. Yeah, that sounds fair.

Some of you keep pushing the idea that without the electoral college certain states would hold all the power. That is a slanted view. What it would mean is the most people would hold the most power. But hey, I get it. If you can take the White House with millions of less votes, why would you want to change that?

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts......

Rural families rely more on food stamps than those in large cities, study shows

Rural Americans are increasingly reliant on food stamps to make ends meet each month — and their usage outstrips that of urban residents, a new study found.

Nationally, food stamp participation is highest overall among households in rural areas (16%) and small towns (16%) compared to metro counties (13%).

In 23% of rural counties, at least 20% of households participate in the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, meaning they get monthly food stamps to help them purchase certain types of food.

The new report from the Food Research and Action Center is based on data from 2011 to 2015.

"No community in America is immune to hunger, but rural and small town areas are especially hard hit," Jim Weill, president of FRAC, said in a press release announcing the findings.

The majority of families reliant on SNAP also have at least one working member — and in some cases there are two or more people working in a family that still needs government assistance to get enough food on the table.

More than three-quarters of families on the assistance program had at least one working member in the past 12 months, FRAC said.

In every state, at least two out of three families receiving food stamps had one or more working members.

In 37 states, at least three out of four SNAP families had at least one working member.

More than two in five (43%) participating households across the country included children.

In five states, more than half of all SNAP households included children, FRAC's report said.

The data was released with maps and interactive databases that paint a disturbing picture of American hunger.

FRAC hopes it will help lawmakers and the media get a deeper understanding of how many American families are struggling — and also dispel long-standing myths and stereotypes about the food stamp program.

"SNAP serves as the first line of defense against hunger and is critical to keeping and lifting low-income households — including massive numbers in rural and small town areas — out of poverty and hunger," Weill said.

"SNAP is one of the nation's very best investments, and it is unacceptable that this proven and effective program is under attack," he said.

SNAP's budget would suffer severe cuts under the President's fiscal year budget and the House Budget Committee's resolution to trim the food stamp program.

In New York, 1.6 million households — that's 2.9 million individuals — rely on food stamps.

That's one in every seven households.

Seventy-four percent of New Yorkers on food stamps are part of a family with at least one working member.

Out of the 25 counties with the highest percentage of SNAP users, only one was a metro county: the Bronx. The remaining 22 are rural counties and two are small town counties.

Of the 53 rural counties nationally with SNAP participation of at least 30%, all but 12 are in the South, FRAC said.

On the state level, nine of the top 10 SNAP users were in the south. The 10th state is Arizona.

The same pattern was found in small towns. Seven of the top 10 highest SNAP users were in the south. The three other states with high small town participation are Arizona, Maine and Oregon.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa...ticle-1.3379148

j/c

Nevada could become 15th state to drop Electoral College in favor of popular vote

Nevada could become the 15th Democratic-leaning state to enact legislation that would allow its electoral votes to be allocated based on the winner of the national popular vote during a presidential election.

A proposal passed by the state Senate on Tuesday is now sitting in the desk of Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, who has not publicly indicated his position on the multi-state effort designed to make sure presidents are elected by the popular vote, rather than the tally of Electoral College votes. The Nevada Assembly approved the measure in April.

If signed into law, Nevada would join the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between 14 states and the District of Columbia that seeks to ensure that the winner of the popular vote is elected president. The pact's objective would only be achieved when the states that adopt the legislation collectively have 270 or more electoral votes.

So far, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have signed up for the pact. The number of electoral votes between the group amounts to 189.

Citing the elections of President Trump and George W. Bush, who won the presidency while losing the popular vote in 2016 and 2000, many Democrats have advocated for a change to the way state electoral votes are bestowed.

Recently, some high-profile Democrats, including those vying for the party's presidential nomination in 2020, have called for the complete abolition of the Electoral College, casting it as an archaic system antithetical to a more direct democracy.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nevada-coul...XZTElhbLBMuPvs4

Oh that's funny. Direct democracy was the "archaic system" that the electoral college was trying to eliminate when all the brilliant minds that founded this country sat down and deliberated for years to come up with a better way. But, yeah let's go back to the even more archaic system they were deliberately trying to avoid because we don't like the results of two close elections.

What would be really funny is that if these 15 strong-blue states saw a somewhat large uptick of conservative voters show up to the polls, because votes that otherwise would of been meaningless to swing the vote in their Democrat-heavy state, would now count in the national popular vote. Can you imagine the uproar if Trump somehow squeaked out a popular vote victory because of that, yet potentially might of lost if it had been a straight electoral college vote. But because of the popular vote, all those states that otherwise would of been easy DNC votes, suddenly had to flip to Trump.

They no more envisioned 50 states with some voters having the same voting power in some states as four voters have in another state than they did machine guns.

To claim our forefathers could see into the future that a voter in Wyoming has the same voting power as four voters in New York is an insane proclamation.

Even with a popular vote, we wouldn't have a direct democracy in the federal executive. The president would still represent the people as in a representative democracy.

The electoral college is busted to me because of the silence of voters who don't vote for the winner. I never voted when I lived in Austin Texas. I never did because I knew my local votes would be blue and my state and national votes would be red. At least in Ohio it's a bit more varied. Of course I'm in talks to move to California , so I'll be going back to a monopolitical sphere like Texas , just on the other end.

They absolutely envisioned that scenario, because 200+ years ago it wasn't Wyoming, it was Rhode Island, or Delaware, etc. And you think a 4 to 1 ratio is bad, the state of Wyoming has the same number of Senate votes (2) that the state of California has. Why? because that's exactly what they wanted.

They didn't want the problems that historically plagued other Republics/Democracies, and more specifically, England and the colonies, where the center of the population dictated what everyone else had to go with. They wanted to give more weight and voice to those that had a different set of problems , but couldn't be heard because they just didn't have the populace. 200+ years ago, the US was Wyoming, and England was New York.

If you do it the other way, then politicians only need to please those in population centers, because that's what will get you votes. Everybody else can go play hunger games.

Valid point. Here's another, using many of your same words: "If you do it the EC way, then politicians only need to please those in swing states, because that's what will get you the only votes you need."

And herein lies the problem.
Now, I'm not suggesting the EC be abolished with no other mechanism in place, but it has become more than obvious that this current system is less than ideal.

Hey, The Originals came up with this, but no law says that The Currents can't begin work on something that improves upon it. They were chunks of 98.6, not demigods... and they didn't always get it right back then.

Just sayin'

Right, but swing states change over time. You can't just do things that please only Ohio, Virginia, etc, because states that otherwise would have voted solidly in your corner, won't be so eager to now, and you've just created a new swing state.

From Wikipedia: "Swing states have generally changed over time. For instance, the swing states of Ohio, Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey and New York were key to the outcome of the 1888 election.[18] Likewise, Illinois[19] and Texas were key to the outcome of the 1960 election, Florida and New Hampshire were key in deciding the 2000 election, and Ohio was important during the 2004 election."

On the other hand, if you do it the other way, then you only need to appease those that are in population centers, and unless there is a dramatic shift in populations (which usually doesn't happen quickly), nothing changes. Everyone who's not in a populous state would be quickly ignored and used for landfills and radio-active dumps.

Well hopefully your vote equals four. I mean that way you can have far more power than other Americans.

So I decided to check, I can't find where you ever posted on any football topic. Since Palus Politicus was started, you've posted almost exclusively there.... At times, you have posted in "everything else". Prior to Palus Politicus, you posted only in Everything else and from what I can tell, you never posted on anything football related.

Now that's not really a big deal, you are totally allowed to do that. But why Football related board and no football related posts.

I'm guessing that if I go to the indians board or Cavs Board or other boards for sports teams that have a section related to everyday things or politics, I'll find you there posting all your trash..

Just a guess of course, I have no intention of checking.

With EC, you can't win on swing states alone. Other states are needed so a candidate can't abandon them. With popular vote, the smaller states won't make a dent in the outcome and will be ignored.

Still no response from the troll. Not surprising.