Gotta love it!

And just who is your average Walmart customer?

Americans, like it or not.
Most likely your neighbors.

There's even a youtube channel I hear tell...............

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 8:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 11/16/2021 7:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/15/2021 11:47:00 PM (view original):
Disagreeing with a party on one element of policy doesn't make you politically homeless. It's ridiculous to expect to agree with one of two parties on everything.

We need to end the electoral college and first past the post and then maybe we can get some third parties.

I agree with the 1st Part. I vehemently DISAGREE on the Electoral college. I don't want a Country that is simply a majority rule Democracy.
The Electoral college is a VITAL part of the Framework established to PROTECT us from Majority thought/Rule.

This is a REPUBLIC (as we were warned!) IF WE could keep it!
I'm prepared to fight to preserve it NOT tear it down!

THAT STARTS by rejecting simple majority rule. The Minority viewpoints MUST be secured and protected!
It is the MAIN thing that makes this Country different and Special.

This, this, this!!!

Instead of the majority ruling, the minority gets to rule over the majority! WHAT A WIN!!

We have the Senate, and we have your basic constitutional freedoms. that protects you from majority rule. The electoral college is a broken, fundamentally flawed system. It is one of my strongest positions that it should be eliminated immediately.

Who does the electoral college actually benefit, exactly? The smaller states, the ones that no one campaigns in and where votes are meaningless because one party will almost always win? OK?

Everyone's vote should be equally important and should matter all the same.

Bob or Strikeout, can you give me one example of a benefit of the electoral college? I'd like specifics.

I'd also like to know why you believe that someone is more valuable because they belong to a state with a lower population - after all, the electoral college functionally gives these people more weight in the outcome of an election than those from larger states.

Keep in mind that in the PRESENT SYSTEM, no one campaigns in the smaller, rural areas, or gives a **** about those votes, and everyone campaigns in big cities in like 5 swing states.

What's IS broken Tangy is the Senate.

On that end, that is why I now DO believe that the Filibuster provision needs eliminated.
THAT (IMO) would result in a more Representative Congress and solve the issue.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 2:27:00 PM (view original):
No, everyone’s vote should not be equally important. Every area of the country should be represented. If you choose to have your vote diluted because you live in a metropolis, sorry for you. People in Wyoming deserve a say as well.

They have that in the senate and the house.
But the votes for national elections should not depend on where you live. We vote for one president and the majority should be counted one man one vote and no penalty or reward for where you choose to live.
all votes equal.

Posted by laramiebob on 11/16/2021 2:47:00 PM (view original):
What's IS broken Tangy is the Senate.

On that end, that is why I now DO believe that the Filibuster provision needs eliminated.
THAT (IMO) would result in a more Representative Congress and solve the issue.

I actually believe that you would carry this stance regardless of who is in power. You are typically pretty consistent. However, the vast majority of people calling for the abolition of the filibuster would not being saying it if their party wasn’t in power. We know this as fact. It wasn’t that long ago when it was a common tool of the left.

I like having the filibuster because I want as many obstacles as possible in congresses way to make new laws. I want as limited government as feasibly possible.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 2:27:00 PM (view original):
No, everyone’s vote should not be equally important. Every area of the country should be represented. If you choose to have your vote diluted because you live in a metropolis, sorry for you. People in Wyoming deserve a say as well.

Under a popular vote system, everyone's vote is exactly equal. You're arguing for why people in Wyoming should have a greater influence than an individual in a metropolis. Why is that? Why should I reduce the ability for someone to affect the outcome just because of where they live?

Why would someone in Wyoming even bother to vote anyway? They know who will win their state. Under a popular vote system, everyone gets a say. Under the electoral college, the only votes that matter come from a couple of swing states.

Longtime Republican and former Arizona Attorney General, former top aide to John McCain, etc Grant Woods just passed on recently.
He was a true Arizonan and Great American. Loved the arts and sports. Friend of Charles Barkley, just an all around great guy.
Just recently He took a stance publicly opposing the Filibuster and agreeing with the Dems it should be eliminated for the good of our Country.

That was the final straw for me as I had been pondering it for years.
HE convinced me it was necessary in nowadays political climate.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 11/16/2021 2:47:00 PM (view original):
What's IS broken Tangy is the Senate.

On that end, that is why I now DO believe that the Filibuster provision needs eliminated.
THAT (IMO) would result in a more Representative Congress and solve the issue.

I actually believe that you would carry this stance regardless of who is in power. You are typically pretty consistent. However, the vast majority of people calling for the abolition of the filibuster would not being saying it if their party wasn’t in power. We know this as fact. It wasn’t that long ago when it was a common tool of the left.

I like having the filibuster because I want as many obstacles as possible in congresses way to make new laws. I want as limited government as feasibly possible.

I'm pretty sure I argued for the abolition of the filibuster around here when the Republicans controlled Congress.

I don't think less laws=less government overreach per say. It just makes a worse government. Ending the filibuster would hopefully mean less EO's, which would be good, right?

But you could say the exact same about the GOP and the electoral college. That's the real reason why we still have it, because it makes no sense on its own. The electoral college is affirmative action for conservatives.

Posted by tangplay on 11/16/2021 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 2:27:00 PM (view original):
No, everyone’s vote should not be equally important. Every area of the country should be represented. If you choose to have your vote diluted because you live in a metropolis, sorry for you. People in Wyoming deserve a say as well.

Under a popular vote system, everyone's vote is exactly equal. You're arguing for why people in Wyoming should have a greater influence than an individual in a metropolis. Why is that? Why should I reduce the ability for someone to affect the outcome just because of where they live?

Why would someone in Wyoming even bother to vote anyway? They know who will win their state. Under a popular vote system, everyone gets a say. Under the electoral college, the only votes that matter come from a couple of swing states.

No, I’m arguing that people in Wyoming should have a say. Wyoming is very different than LA and NYC. In a popular vote system, a handful of cities would decide the election.

If we want to protect the minority opinion why stop at where you live? Why wouldn't we artificially count black people's vote more over white people? Surely your arguments about protecting minority opinion apply to other groups beyond just smaller states (AKA rural people), right?

There are tons of minority interests in the country. I think in order to protect every single minority group, we should have a system that artificially inflates and deflates votes based on your identity, job, age, and place of residence. Only then can we protect our freedoms.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 3:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/16/2021 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 2:27:00 PM (view original):
No, everyone’s vote should not be equally important. Every area of the country should be represented. If you choose to have your vote diluted because you live in a metropolis, sorry for you. People in Wyoming deserve a say as well.

Under a popular vote system, everyone's vote is exactly equal. You're arguing for why people in Wyoming should have a greater influence than an individual in a metropolis. Why is that? Why should I reduce the ability for someone to affect the outcome just because of where they live?

Why would someone in Wyoming even bother to vote anyway? They know who will win their state. Under a popular vote system, everyone gets a say. Under the electoral college, the only votes that matter come from a couple of swing states.

No, I’m arguing that people in Wyoming should have a say. Wyoming is very different than LA and NYC. In a popular vote system, a handful of cities would decide the election.

Why would a handful of cities decide an election when everyone's vote counts the exact same? Someone in Wyoming would have the exact same weight on the result as someone in LA under a popular vote.

RIGHT NOW, a couple of cities decide the election, just a couple of cities in swing states. No one panders or tries to win votes from Wyoming.

I agree that the party in power of all 3 wants to abolish the filibuster and I shudder to think what would happen if a trump like president and Trump like congress hot together with no filibuster.
maybe there should be some modifications and maybe a carve out for voting rights yes but not for regular policy. There still is reconciliation for a lot.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 3:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/16/2021 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 2:27:00 PM (view original):
No, everyone’s vote should not be equally important. Every area of the country should be represented. If you choose to have your vote diluted because you live in a metropolis, sorry for you. People in Wyoming deserve a say as well.

Under a popular vote system, everyone's vote is exactly equal. You're arguing for why people in Wyoming should have a greater influence than an individual in a metropolis. Why is that? Why should I reduce the ability for someone to affect the outcome just because of where they live?

Why would someone in Wyoming even bother to vote anyway? They know who will win their state. Under a popular vote system, everyone gets a say. Under the electoral college, the only votes that matter come from a couple of swing states.

No, I’m arguing that people in Wyoming should have a say. Wyoming is very different than LA and NYC. In a popular vote system, a handful of cities would decide the election.

They do have a say, just like everyone else. People in Wyoming can elect people to congress or the senate without people in NY and LA having a say in the matter. People in NY and LA should have a say in national elections just as people in Wyoming should as it affects all of them. Why should people in densely populated areas votes count any less or more than someone from Wyoming or Montana? They shouldn't.