Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 27, 2013, 09:43 AM   #101
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Velvet View Post





America: predominantly blue. So much for the 'right of center' nation.

It's the Senate that is the truly undemocratic house. Two senators from each state, with no regard to population. Nebraska, Wyoming and North Dakota have as many senators in the Senate as California, Florida and New York.
The senate is good though because it doesn't allow states with large populations to simply dictate rules to states with smaller populations.

I think congress needs to become representative. If a party wins 30% of the votes, they get 30% of the seats, etc.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 09:57 AM   #102
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
This chart show California population going up since 2004 if I read it right or was this your intent?

Gerrymandering is BS...
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 11:07 AM   #103
Technarchy
macrumors 601
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
I'd like to see some evidence about California hemorrhaging residents. I think it's mostly imaginary.
You don't lose electoral seats over imaginary population shrink.

However if the census of the United States is not enough, I recommend Google...
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 11:27 AM   #104
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
You don't lose electoral seats over imaginary population shrink.

However if the census of the United States is not enough, I recommend Google...
Not necessarily. Seats are apportioned by state approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states. So you could gain residents but your share of the total population could be lower.

California population 2000 census- 33,871,648
California population 2010 census- 37,253,956

That's a 10% rise in population with no change to number of seats.

NY 2000 - 18,976,457
NY 2010 - 19,570,261

Loss of 2 seats.

Ohio 2000 - 11,353,140
Ohio 2010 - 11,544,225

Loss of 2 seats.

Last edited by rdowns; Jan 27, 2013 at 11:52 AM. Reason: Added Ohio
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 11:42 AM   #105
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
I'd like to see some evidence about California hemorrhaging residents. I think it's mostly imaginary.

Good weather states are going to gain residents, there's no doubt about that but the traffic problems of states like Texas, Arizona and Florida and lack of urban amenities mean they don't attract as many of the creative class.
CA has been losing a lost of residents that much is true and a good chunk of them are moving to Texas. Now it is means Texas is becoming more blue but the problem is they are moving to the cities and they rig the system to suppress those votes.

In Texas they did some things with congressional and state districts that they try to make sure all dems are minorities. They do not want a white dem elected.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 11:43 AM   #106
mrkramer
macrumors 601
 
mrkramer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I think congress needs to become representative. If a party wins 30% of the votes, they get 30% of the seats, etc.
That would definitely be good, then we wouldn't have to worry about the Republican house obstructing congress since the Democrats got over 50% of the votes for the house.
__________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Mikhail Gorbachev
mrkramer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 11:44 AM   #107
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Send a message via AIM to Ugg
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
You don't lose electoral seats over imaginary population shrink.

However if the census of the United States is not enough, I recommend Google...
rdowns' link proved my point. From 2004 to 2011, California gained 1.8 million people, that's hardly 'bleeding'.

Texas and Florida in the same time period gained 3.1 and 1.6 million people respectively. Obviously, their rate of growth is higher but the figures only show total population growth and it's not broken down by birth/death rates or people moving in/moving out of the state.

BTW, California did not lose any congressional seats. The losses were almost all in the cold, rust states of the upper midwest and east.
__________________
Check out <Peter's family tree!
Ugg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 11:48 AM   #108
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkramer View Post
That would definitely be good, then we wouldn't have to worry about the Republican house obstructing congress since the Democrats got over 50% of the votes for the house.
Democrats got a million more votes nationwide than Republicans in all house races yet the Republicans control the house. Gerrymandering, **** yeah!
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 12:31 PM   #109
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
To our liberal and conservative forum members, can you at least agree that the electoral vote system should be thrown out?
likemyorbs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 12:35 PM   #110
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
To our liberal and conservative forum members, can you at least agree that the electoral vote system should be thrown out?
Nope. I think we get a lot more information about the potential local impact of the candidates' policies because the electoral college is state-based. Also, the results of the EC are highly correlated with the popular vote anyways.
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 12:37 PM   #111
mrkramer
macrumors 601
 
mrkramer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
To our liberal and conservative forum members, can you at least agree that the electoral vote system should be thrown out?
As long as it's replaced with the popular vote.
__________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Mikhail Gorbachev
mrkramer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 12:41 PM   #112
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Nope. I think we get a lot more information about the potential local impact of the candidates' policies because the electoral college is state-based. Also, the results of the EC are highly correlated with the popular vote anyways.
It's also winner take all per state. This really locks us into the current leading parties. Others aren't likely to gain a lot of leverage when the majority of the popular vote is needed in a given state. There would still be problems. Multiple choice has its own flaws, but right now we have battleground states. If a candidate can't carry a specific state, it's worthless to them in presidential elections.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 02:13 PM   #113
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Nope. I think we get a lot more information about the potential local impact of the candidates' policies because the electoral college is state-based. Also, the results of the EC are highly correlated with the popular vote anyways.
That only matters in a handful of states. The rest of them do not matter at all. It should be changed to popular vote.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 05:44 PM   #114
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkramer View Post
As long as it's replaced with the popular vote.
Of course. Popular vote is the definition of a pure democracy. But I think it would be difficult for republicans to support a move like that because they would lose practically every single election.
likemyorbs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 10:40 PM   #115
Hugh
macrumors Demi-God
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Erie, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocke12 View Post
I don't know...

::::SNIP::::
Phily isn't the only place in PA that vote blue, here in Erie we are considered blue. Might have something about the fact that we are the 3rd largest city in PA.

Hugh
__________________
Hal 9000: You like your Macintosh better then me, Dave?
Hugh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 10:44 PM   #116
thewitt
macrumors 68000
 
thewitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
To our liberal and conservative forum members, can you at least agree that the electoral vote system should be thrown out?
In national elections, the Electoral College protects rural America. Without it, politicians would only have to win the large cities to win the popular vote. While it isn't perfect, it's better than a simple majority.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by likemyorbs View Post
Of course. Popular vote is the definition of a pure democracy. But I think it would be difficult for republicans to support a move like that because they would lose practically every single election.
The US is NOT a Democracy. It's a Representative Republic based on democratic principles.

Did you not take civics courses in school?
thewitt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 10:52 PM   #117
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
In national elections, the Electoral College protects rural America. Without it, politicians would only have to win the large cities to win the popular vote. While it isn't perfect, it's better than a simple majority
So a rual vote should count more than a city vote?
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 10:57 PM   #118
mrkramer
macrumors 601
 
mrkramer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
So a rual vote should count more than a city vote?
Probably unless the city votes Republican, perhaps we could give each person in a city three-fifths of a vote...
__________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Mikhail Gorbachev
mrkramer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2013, 11:16 PM   #119
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
In national elections, the Electoral College protects rural America. Without it, politicians would only have to win the large cities to win the popular vote. While it isn't perfect, it's better than a simple majority...
Sure, but why does a rancher's vote matter more than an engineer who lives in the city? Why does rural America matter when most of our problems and solutions are in cities?
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 12:44 AM   #120
swiftaw
macrumors 603
 
swiftaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Omaha, NE, USA
A possible compromise would be to keep the EC, but add some EC votes for the winner of the popular vote. So you get the designated number of EC votes for winning each state, and you also get say 11 EC votes for winning the total popular vote.


One thing I would like to see is the elimination of primaries. Just have a general election featuring all people who want to run, including multiple D/R and also minority party candidates. Then use the Hare voting system to pick the winner (although this may be too complicated for some citizens). Along with that, the election cycle has to be shortened. It lasts for over a year. How are politicians supposed to run a country if they are too busy campaigning. Along with that, I think that 2-year term is too short for congress. By the time you get elected it's time to start campaigning for the next election.

I agree that Gerrymandering is evil, but I don't know what to do about it. Both parties are too enamored with the idea of creating safe seats, and aren't going to give up that power without a fight (or a rebellion).
swiftaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 02:31 AM   #121
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
In national elections, the Electoral College protects rural America.
Lol, apparently not well enough. So you believe that a rural vote is worth more than a city vote? I don't understand how you can make sense out of this in your brain. Every American is worth one vote, which ever candidates gets more votes wins, how is that not perfect? Sounds pretty damn perfect to me. It would to you too if republicans were able to win on popular vote, which they almost never can.

----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
The US is NOT a Democracy. It's a Representative Republic based on democratic principles.

Did you not take civics courses in school?
A representative republic has nothing to do with electoral colleges. All it means is that we elect representatives to make laws instead of citizens directly making laws by themselves. This says nothing about what type of voting system we should have. We would still be a representative republic with a popular vote system. I know the thought of majority rule is frightening to conservatives though.



I'm sad to say that most of our republican posters here have admitted that they would be willing to suppress the will of the majority in order for their party to win by keeping an easily manipulated electoral system that allows them to cheat more easily. That pretty much sums you guys up. Pretty anti-American if you ask me.

Last edited by likemyorbs; Jan 28, 2013 at 03:14 AM.
likemyorbs is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 03:24 AM   #122
thewitt
macrumors 68000
 
thewitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
You liberals are the ones saying a rural vote means more than a city vote, not me.

Really, it's a waste of my time to even post here.

Cross one more off your list. Soon, if not already, you can all just agree on every point made and you will be happily ignorant and in bliss.

Last edited by annk; Feb 6, 2013 at 08:30 AM. Reason: Removed slur
thewitt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 03:29 AM   #123
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
You liberals are the ones saying a rural vote means more than a city vote, not me.

Really, it's a waste of my time to even post here.

Cross one more off your list. Soon, if not already, you can all just agree on every point made and you will be happily ignorant and in bliss.
What point are we failing to see? You openly admit that you dont want the vote of the majority to determine presidential elections because you dislike that the majority of the population who happens to live in more densely populated states vote differently than you because they have a more educated population. You just seem to be frustrated by facts. I would love to debate with you but you make it impossible because your right wing bias clouds your mind and suppresses the processing of facts, figures, and pure logic. Can't you ever admit when you're wrong?

Last edited by annk; Feb 6, 2013 at 08:30 AM. Reason: Removed slurs from quoted post and response
likemyorbs is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 06:01 AM   #124
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
You liberals are the ones saying a rural vote means more than a city vote, not me.

Really, it's a waste of my time to even post here.

Cross one more off your list. Soon, if not already, you can all just agree on every point made and you will be happily ignorant and in bliss.
we are still waiting for you to explain how you can come to any other conclusion with what you said.

Also think it is funny that you are calling us liberal. You are ultra right wing but then again ultra right wing calls anything that is not ultra conservative liberal.

Last edited by annk; Feb 6, 2013 at 08:32 AM. Reason: Removed slur from quoted post
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 07:52 AM   #125
likemyorbs
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Send a message via AIM to likemyorbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post

Also think it is funny that you are calling us liberal. You are ultra right wing but then again ultra right wing calls anything that is not ultra conservative liberal.
Ronald Reagan would have been too liberal for conservatives today.
likemyorbs is offline   5 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Installed win 8.1 using bootcamp and can't change brightness vmflapem Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac 1 Jan 22, 2014 02:36 PM
[WW] - The Game of Thrones - GAME OVER - LOYALS WIN chrmjenkins Community Discussion 1328 Oct 30, 2013 04:29 PM
[WW] MrVille - The Colony 2 - Game Over. COLONISTS WIN! chrmjenkins Wasteland 962 Jul 30, 2012 07:13 PM
[WW] MRville - The Colony - GAME OVER - COLONISTS WIN chrmjenkins Wasteland 539 Jul 18, 2012 02:23 PM
[WW] MRville - Around the Campfire: Game Over, wolves win abijnk Wasteland 1709 Jul 13, 2012 06:15 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps