Socialism -- a pathway to disaster

[Kenny]

Not being American most of that escapes me. Never understood the purpose of the electoral college. And I thought the Supreme Court had a conservative majority now. With the latest appointment of that lady. That’s what I have been hearing for like the last week anyway. Fears over rollbacks done to equality gains. Again it escapes me not being American.

I understand... just for your info to make a long story short:

The reason for the electoral college is so that an election isn't determined by two states like New York, California. If it is a straight majority, then the rest of the country has absolutely no impact because of its sparseness as compared to these major cities and states. The heavily populated cities tend to be more liberal.

By using the Electoral College, each state now has a vote of impact and those who want to be elected actually have to visit these states. Otherwise they would just concentrate on the heavily populated areas.

I think the "fears" are just a political issue to get votes. I don't really see tangible rollbacks. But time will tell.

 

[Yerda]

If it is a straight majority, then the rest of the country has absolutely no impact because of its sparseness as compared to these major cities and states.

I've always found this line of reasoning to be a bit odd. If the president of the USA was elected on a one-person-one-vote basis then everybody in the country who voted would have precisely the same impact on the outcome.

 

[Kenny]

I've always found this line of reasoning to be a bit odd. If the president of the USA was elected on a one-person-one-vote basis then everybody in the country who voted would have precisely the same impact on the outcome.

Not really... because of the high density states.. one could concentrate on basically 3 to 4 states and ignore the rest of the country. High density tends to lean liberal too.

Why spend money on a state like Montana who has half a million people when you can spend it in New York that has 8 million?

It is the same reasoning for the Senate. Though New York has more people, it gives a voice to the states that don't.

 

[metis]

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, humans are ultimately made by God, whereas states are entirely human made and arbitrary. Therefore, to me, the popular vote is the only one that should be used for president, governor, and mayor, and the latter two is exactly what is done throughout this country in the overwhelming number of cases.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not really... because of the high density states.. one could concentrate on basically 3 to 4 states and ignore the rest of the country. High density tends to lean liberal too.
Why spend money on a state like Montana who has half a million people when you can spend it in New York that has 8 million?

How is this not what they have already been doing? As it is, the candidates focus on, and campaign in the swing states while ignoring all the rest.

Why do you think "high density tends to lean liberal?"

It is the same reasoning for the Senate. Though New York has more people, it gives a voice to the states that don't.

So in essence, the less densely populated areas are getting a bigger voice than they have.

 

[metis]

How is this not what they have already been doing? As it is, the candidates focus on, and campaign in the swing states while ignoring all the rest.

And how many times has Trump threaten to withhold federal funds to "Democrat states" for entirely partisan-political reasons? And how many times has he blamed "Democrat governors/mayors" when rioting took place, as if they called for them.

At being 75 years of "maturity", I don't recall any previous president that was so willing to stoop as low as Trump has. His behavior is what autocrats do, which is unethical politically in a democracy and in opposition to even the most basic Judeo-Christian morals that were taught to protect the innocent. Instead, Trump uses the "divide & conquer" approach that the fascist leaders in pre-WWII used so effectively in Europe to attain power. Coincidence? Maybe not, as Ivana, Trump's first wife, wrote that the Donald frequently kept NAZI reading materials on his bed-stand to "relax him" before turning in. "Sour grapes"? Maybe, but then maybe not.

 

[Goddess Kit]

The best path toward disaster is assuming that one way is better than another.

 

[metis]

The best path toward disaster is assuming that one way is better than another.

First of all, welcome here to RF.

I am not a fan of one-size-fits-all, but neither am I a fan of false-equivalencies.

 

[Goddess Kit]

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

 

[SkepticThinker]

And how many times has Trump threaten to withhold federal funds to "Democrat states" for entirely partisan-political reasons? And how many times has he blamed "Democrat governors/mayors" when rioting took place, as if they called for them.

At being 75 years of "maturity", I don't recall any previous president that was so willing to stoop as low as Trump has. His behavior is what autocrats do, which is unethical politically in a democracy and in opposition to even the most basic Judeo-Christian morals that were taught to protect the innocent. Instead, Trump uses the "divide & conquer" approach that the fascist leaders in pre-WWII used so effectively in Europe to attain power. Coincidence? Maybe not, as Ivana, Trump's first wife, wrote that the Donald frequently kept NAZI reading materials on his bed-stand to "relax him" before turning in. "Sour grapes"? Maybe, but then maybe not.

Exactly.

 

[Kenny]

How is this not what they have already been doing? As it is, the candidates focus on, and campaign in the swing states while ignoring all the rest.

Why do you think "high density tends to lean liberal?"

So in essence, the less densely populated areas are getting a bigger voice than they have.

No... not really. Yes, they will focus more on swing states but even Iowa can be a swing state.

As far as "liberal"... that is a good question. I've looked it up and there doesn't seem to be a consistent reason. Even the "reason why" seems to have a partisan hue. I found one site that said it is because the cities have better education as if to say that somehow those in rural areas don't have one... a very skewed viewpoint IMO.

So... no, it equalizes the power of the less densely populated states (such as Montana).

 

[Yerda]

Not really...

Really.

One-person-one-vote gives every person exactly one vote. That means Jimmy in Montana has exactly the same weight in electing the president as Jemima in LA or Aziz in Houston.

It is the same reasoning for the Senate. Though New York has more people, it gives a voice to the states that don't.

It isn't the same reasoning.

 

[metis]

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Obviously Gandhi was using hyperbole with the above as a great many Christians were attracted to him and his cause of nonviolence and love. I have long considered him to be my mentor, and his principles has guided me for decades now.