Political Cartoons Vol. 2
- Thread starter hypewaders
- Start date
The greater evil wants you to not vote.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Is she in the country legally?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Strong endorsement for ending the electoral college.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
If we end the electoral college, then 5 metropolitan areas will always be able to choose the next president, leaving all rural americans without a vote
.....................
how many millions of Americans would you disenfranchise to get what you want?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
You assume they will vote in a bloc. Red states ain't purely red, blue states ain't purely blue.
Instead of the other way around, like now. So?
Besides - if you can't even keep it close enough in the cities to hand the swing vote to the rest, you should lose.
Three million were disenfranchised so whoever wanted President Trump could get what they wanted.
One man/ one vote, doesn't sound like disenfranchisement to me. It sounds like a better idea than splitting California into three States and combining the Dakotas, which would give the Dems the Senate as well as Californians something more like equivalent electoral representation.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Every state gets 2 senators regardless of population
The house is determined by population
We have one elector per member of congress,
so the 538 member electoral college is sightly weighted toward the rural states
One (wo)man one vote is democracy
We do not now live in a democracy and never have
Get used to that
Meanwhile, the real danger is our tending toward corporatocracy.
Changing how votes are counted ain't gonna cure nor prevent that.
The house is determined by population
We have one elector per member of congress,
so the 538 member electoral college is sightly weighted toward the rural states
One (wo)man one vote is democracy
We do not now live in a democracy and never have
Get used to that
Meanwhile, the real danger is our tending toward corporatocracy.
Changing how votes are counted ain't gonna cure nor prevent that.
No, the PEOPLE get to choose the next president. Cities have more influence because (wait for it . . .) there are more PEOPLE in them.
Real estate doesn't vote. People do. And the system should reflect that.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
And they won't be unanimous.
the five largest metro areas
newyork, la, chicago, dallas, houston only comprise at best around 60 million people which even if they voted lock step comprise less than 20% of the countries population. which as others have noted don't vote lock step. their is a big difference between a city and its metro area. look at atlanta the ninth largest by pop. it includes cities such as john's creek, roswell, alpharetta, and milton which are rich as fuck and vote solidily republican. as it is now rural areas have a vastly out sized effect on election pushing their wants onto others. rural voters right now can have orders of magnitude more say than suburban or urban voters. look lets be honest you favor the current system of outsized rural voting cause they vote conservative. somehow if they voted liberally i bet you'd support fucking them.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
What do you have against capitalization? I thought that fad died out in the '90s?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
You're correct, even the top 10 wouldn't be 100 million
OOPS
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Tovarish! We bill family for bullet, da?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
bullet fee
...................
I had a sergeant in the army who said: "The bullet that's gonna kill you only cost 6 cents."
(as in---what is your life worth?)
(I'll pay for one---------make it count)
while it wouldn't be a lock for a win its still something like 15 or 17% of the population. it would nudge the needle and to pretend it would not have an effect wouldn't be honest. it would change the balance of power between different voting blocks and that is something with consequences. so while i do feel your statement was hyperbolic you were right in pointing out it would have an effect that would more than likely lean in the direction claim.
20% of the population could easily gain control of the US Federal government if they 1) all voted and 2) as a bloc.
We've seen that.
It's weighted against the urban areas - against the majority of the population.
It's also - in consequence - weighted against black, educated, and/or female people. (Also a collective majority of the population)
So you agree completely with my post, including its objection to your labeling one man/one vote "disenfranchisement".
In other words, the Republican Party's agenda.
The current system is biased against most of the people in the country, and the fraction of the population it is biased toward has been victimized by a well organized and richly funded propaganda operation of several decades now. This propaganda effort would have been much more difficult and expensive had it been forced to degrade the entire population to the degree necessary.
Last edited: