Just too funny.....
-
@KUSTEVE I told my summer interns that voting didn’t matter as much as they think. It’s all up to the electoral college. One kids head nearly exploded in disbelief (his eyes are open now). Not all on the electoral college have to vote for candidate that won the vote count. I seriously doubt enough will change their vote to swing an election, but it’s a strange fact.
I appreciate what the electoral college is supposed to do: give a voice to less populated areas. However, there doesn’t actually need to be an electoral college, just the votes/points they represent as voted by the public. No need for more intervention and the corruption that goes with it. A representative republic already limits its peoples input enough!
-
In all actuality, rural areas are overrepresented in the electoral college.
Because each state has a minimum number of electors, and the electoral college is capped at 538, rural states tend to be over represented in the electoral college. The only real way to correct this would be to set the electoral college minimum at the smallest state (or DC), which is currently Wyoming, divide by three (the minimum number of electors currently) and then use that number to determine how many electors each other state gets.
Of course, this would vastly increase the number of electors (California would have nearly 200 under this model), but that shows just how skewed the system is since California has only 55 electors right now, compared to Wyoming’s 3. Nearly every state would see an increase in electors, and the number of electors total would soar to between 1600 and 1800 (depending on how rounding is handled).
-
Just some interesting numbers. Clinton won California by 4,5 million votes. Without California, Trump wins the popular vote by 1.5 million votes. California with 55 electoral college votes provides 20%+ of the votes required to win the election. New York and Florida have 58 votes combined. These 3 states combined provide 41% of the votes need to win the elections; add Illinois and Pennsylvanian with 40 votes and these 5 states have 60% of the votes needed.
There are 3,144 counties (or equivalent such as parishes) in the country. Of these counties, 58 of the so called elite coastal counties or areas around big cities such as New York, Washington DC, Boston, LA, and Sacramento, have the same population as the rest of the remaining 3,086 counties in the country. BTW, Clinton won 500+ counties and Trump won 2,500+ counties
It makes you appreciate the wisdom of the founding fathers when they created a Representative Republic with an Electoral College as opposed to a Democracy, when selecting the form of government.
-
@JayHawkFanToo why? Why should a vote in the middle of the country be worth more than a vote on the coast?
-
@approxinfinity i understand. if the royals win the world series 4-1, but in the one game they lose 20-0, then Royals actually are not the champions because the other team scored more overall runs.
-
How do you figure that? The number votes of the electoral college are based on the number of Congressional districts which are based on population plus one for every senator which was done so the smaller states would not completely disenfranchised. The Founding fathers thought that Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania with their large populations would dominate and the other states would have no say.
For example California has 56 congressional district with 56 congressmen plus 2 senators so it gets 58 votes; Kansas has 4 congressional districts with 4 congressman plus 2 senators for a total of 6 electoral college votes…California has just about 10 times the number of votes of Kansas. If we had a Majority Democracy instead of a Representative Republic, a few coastal states could band together and the entire central portion of the country would have no voice whatsoever. Do you really think this is what we should have?
You should read the 12th Amendment to the Constitution that outlines the Electoral College and the Federalist Papers #68 that explains in painstaking detail; the rationale behind the Electoral College.
I really should stay out of politics and restrict my comments to KU Basketball and related subjects.
-
@JayHawkFanToo The overrepresentation is just in the number of electors stemming from the two senators in states with small populations resulting in only one congressional district. It is only in the 100 votes total, out of 538, so the overrepresentation is mostly offset. Not a huge deal.
The fears of regionalism were stronger than we can appreciate now.
-
@JayHawkFanToo as @mayjay said, regionalism was more of an issue then. States aren’t banding together. People are voting as individuals. It is absolutely true that the electoral college (something Donald Trump once called a disaster for democracy when it appeared that Obama would lose the popular and win the college) ends up weighing the vote of some citizens more heavily than others. I ask you if that is fair. I believe every citizen who has not forfeited their right to vote should have their vote for the president counted equally, whether they decide to live in California or Kansas. Whether they rent an apartment or own serious acreage. Yes.
-
@approxinfinity In a country this large, and a two party system, the only way for the smaller midwestern states to have a voice is the current system. It forces candidates to care about everyone and not just the major cities. Why would a president campaign anywhere other than NYC, LA, Seattle, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, D.C., San Fran, Philly and Miami? And why would a president/congress introduce policies/bills that help anyone but those in major cities? Do you think a small state like KS would get the same federal funding? Lol nope. Pump that into big cities and get their votes. It would become more about keeping the 55% in large cities happy and staying in office than the 45% who aren’t. Popular vote just can’t work to “give everyone a voice” if we have such a wide varieties of lifestyles. Current system does a better job of getting everyone heard than a popular vote would. At least in my opinion.
-
@Kcmatt7 OK, but Kansas already gets the least federal grant money per dollar of federal taxes paid: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
The federal government should do what is right for all of its citizens. I have a hard time believing that this funding is dependent upon the existence of the electoral college. Are North Dakotas electoral votes so cherished to warrant 5 dollars of fed funding on the tax dollar?
-
If you’re a person living in a rural state with only one Congressperson, like North Dakota, Montana or Wyoming, it’s pretty nice to have your vote count for as much as two or three votes in a more densely populated state like New York or California.
I posted a graphic a while back when we were talking about populations and showing how votes were cast. The current maps show mostly red because most of the states voted GOP. I did one of Kansas, with population weightings
The top map is colored to show only counties with at least 100,000 population. The bottom is colored to show only counties with at least 15,000 in population filled in, with those over 25,000 in the darker shade.
Notice that in both maps, the bulk of the state is blank. It presents a much different picture, even in a state that is very dominantly Republican like Kansas, than the map that colors every area in, regardless of population, with no differentiation for population.
The Electoral College (and the Senate structure) were both created as compromises to the Rural South to keep the more populated North from outlawing slavery simply by having more population (and the political power that comes with it). Let’s remember that the South created the embarassing three fifths compromise (whereby slaves were counted as three fifths of a person for population purposes to give the South more Congressional seats and electors) to keep the slaves from being considered people while still using them for political influence.
The founding fathers could not have ever envisioned that one state would have over 60 times the number of people as another state. At this current time, Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska all have populations small enough that they technically don’t qualify for one full Congressional Seat. Think about that for a moment. Those three states have a very much outsized influence on the politics of the US when considering their population, and that shows up particularly in the electoral college, where having their two senators added to their one Congressional representative substantially overrepresents their population.
We do this in Kansas as well, with many of the rural house and senate districts having only 90% of the population of an ideal district (the size of a district based purely on population) while many of the urban and suburban districts have 105% or more of the population of an ideal district. So much for one person, one vote.
-
@approxinfinity Wow! Bless the cotton pickin’ lil heart of federal-government-despising SC!
-
@justanotherfan and without the electoral college, we would forget about places like Vermont, Wyoming and Alaska. Do they have more influence than population they represent? Absolutely. Is that fair? Absolutely. If we didn’t do that, we wouldn’t hear their voices.
You as a minority should understand better than anyone on this board that having your voice heard the same as anyone else is important. By having the electoral college we give people that would otherwise be forgotten, a louder voice on a much more level playing field. It makes EVERY state get heard. If we switched, that wouldn’t be the case. If we switched to a popular vote, I wouldn’t ever vote. Because my vote wouldn’t help me. My vote would go to someone who doesn’t care about me and doesn’t even have to think about my existence.
-
@approxinfinity no their oil is what is worth $5 on the dollar…
If we went to a popular vote it would be a disaster. In a two party system, well it would be pointless. I wouldn’t vote. Because neither candidate would be in it for my best interest. Or would even have to think about me. Maybe if we did the popular vote a viable 3rd party would appear. But more likely than not, it wouldn’t. It is too difficult to start one up from the ground up. There is too much campaigning to do across the midwest in order to hit every state you would have to in order to gain enough votes to matter. And there wouldn’t be even close to the amount of funding needed for that. So, essentially, that will never happen in my lifetime. And I hope the switch to a popular vote doesn’t either.
-
Put simply, I don’t want to switch to a purely popular vote, because I don’t want to go to war with California. Another civil war does no good.
-
They may have the numbers, but we cling to our guns in the Midwest. Lol
-
The Electoral College (and the Senate structure) were both created as compromises to the Rural South to keep the more populated North from outlawing slavery simply by having more population (and the political power that comes with it). Let’s remember that the South created the embarassing three fifths compromise (whereby slaves were counted as three fifths of a person for population purposes to give the South more Congressional seats and electors) to keep the slaves from being considered people while still using them for political influence.
Actually you have it backwards and this is common misunderstanding that allows a lot of people to claim that a racist congress introduced the 3/5 wording to indicate that blacks persons were worth less than white. This is the opposite of why it actually happened, the North created the 3/5 clause to give the South less Congressional seats.
At that time, and while slaves were not allowed to vote, they were still considered in the allocation of congressional districts. Had the South. which promoted slavery, had counted slaves a 1, it would have had larger population and more congressional; seats and the slavery laws would have not been repelled. By counting slaves as 3/5 of one white person, the population of the South, for congressional redistricting purposes, was reduced and did not have the votes to continue slavery that was eventually repelled by the North. The 3/5 wording was introduced as an anti-slavery measure that eventually paid off.
When I first heard of the 3/5 clause, I was also surprised until a professor friend of mine explained to me the reason 40+ years ago and since then, I have heard almost everybody, particularly race baiters such as Sharpton and Jackson and most recently the people from the BLM movement claim the racism of such a clause without knowing that they were completely wrong. Here is a good explanation of it.
-
Nobody is forfeiting his or her vote. We all have the right to vote and have our voices heard. What I find interesting is that no one in the Democratic Party had an issue with the Electoral College when they thought Hillary was going to win in one of the largest landslides victories ever as it was universally projected/predicted when the electoral cycle started, she was after all the second coming of the anointed one and the best prepared candidate ever, and now that she lost, they are all up in arms about it. If you read about all the riots that happened after the election, they found out that 7o% of the rioters had not even voted…why did not exercise their right to vote peacefully like the rest of us?
Remember all the riots, letter writing campaigns to Electoral College voters, accusations of fraud and foreign interference and threats of impeachment when Obama won?
I don’t either because it did not happen. We did not like Obama but accepted the results and moved on.
If you don’t like the law, change it. The constitution clearly specifies the procedure to change it; do it before the fact and don’t try to change it after the fact when it no longer fits your purposes. This is the equivalent of KU beating Duke in the Final Four and then Duke wanting the result changed because KU scored a lot of points by shooting 3 pointers that unfairly give an advantage to short players which are better shooters and unfairly disenfranchises bigs that cannot shoot from the outside. Have you ever heard a football coach claim…we had more passing and rushing yards, more tackles and more interception, we demand the result be changed so we win the game even though the other team scored more points?
The only time Hillary went to California was to raise money and I believe Trump was there maybe one time? The end goals is the electoral college and California is pretty much a given that it will go Democrat so no one bothers to campaign there .Have you ever heard of a political campaign indicating …our objective is to win the popular vote and who cares about the electoral college? I thought that was always the case until I read that Donna Brazile, the head of the DNC, diverted $10M in the last week of the campaign to Chicago and New Orleans because she thought they could lose the popular vote there…Chicago and New Orleans? Afraid they could lose the popular vote there? Are you kidding me? ARE YOU F’ING KIDDING ME? This type of incompetence and a deeply flawed, corrupt and truly unlikable candidate with a sense of entitlement is what lost the election.
Remember the first big meeting Obama had after being elected president when he invited member of Congress to discuss his famous (or infamous) Stimulus package? When Republicans made some suggestions, some very good by by all accounts, he interrupted and said…I invited you as a courtesy but you are here to listen to what I have to say. Elections have consequences, I won you lost, deal with it. I am paraphrasing of course but the gist is correct. How things have changed and how differently some people feel when the power is on the other side.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I’m also anxiously awaiting our newly elected President to put bitterness aside long enough to graciously offer Mrs. Felonia Von Paantsuite the position of Ambassador to Libya. Cuba would be too good for her.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I was referring to felons.
-
When it comes to felons, it varies from state to state. If you feel the law is unfair, you can always work to change it. I personally believe that while a person is serving a lawfully imposed sentence, he or she forfeits some rights as part of the penalty imposed by society. When that person has fully completed his or her sentence he or she gets those rights back.
Here’s a look at which states do what, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (Updated December 18, 2016).
States With No Ban on Felon Voting
These two states allow those convicted to felonies to vote even while they serve their terms. The voters in these states never lose their rights.
- Maine
- Vermont
States That Ban Felons From Voting While Incarcerated
These states strip voting rights from felons while they’re serving out their terms but restore them automatically once they are out of prison.
- Washington, D.C.
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Montana
- New Hampshire
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
States That Restore Voting Rights to Felons After Completion of Sentence
These states restore voting rights to those convicted of felony crimes only after they have completed their entire sentences including prison term, parole and probation, among other certain requirements.
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Kansas
- Louisiana
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
Some of these states have instituted a waiting period of several years before felons who have completed their sentences can apply to vote again. States Where the Governor Must Reinstate Voting Rights
In these states, voting rights are not automatically restored and, in most cases, the governor must do it on a case-by-case basis.
- Alabama
- Arizona (repeat offenders)
- Florida
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Mississippi
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Wyoming
Sources:
- “Restoring Voting Rights for Former Felons,” Project Vote, December 2016.
- “Felon Voting Rights,” National Conference of State Legislatures, December 2016
- “States Divided on Felon Voting Rights,” Stateline.org, February 2014
-
@dylans Plus they have state mandated 10 round maximum, non-removeable magazines. And soon to be a 10 day waiting period from time of purchase to receiving. Why anybody with any common sense would live where illegals are more revered than natural citizens is beyond me.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I didn’t say how I felt about felons voting. Interesting info though.
-
Remeber what Gallagher used to say about living in California being like living in a bowl of granola?..the punch line is probably too politically incorrect…
-
I did not indicate how you felt either, I simply wrote… If you feel the law is unfair…yada yada yada…on the other hand, if you feel the law has it right now then you are good to go. We all have options and choices.
-
@JayHawkFanToo said:
This morning I visited with a friend who happens to be a policeman and had seen the story. His comment was that police uniforms are designed as to not leave any doubt that the individual wearing is in law enforcement. His words were…you would have to be a moron not not know the individual was a law enforcement agent, hard to believe that a college student and a criminal science professor could not see this…I am paraphrasing, of course.
Earlier this year in northeast Kansas (I think Brown County, but I could be wrong) there was an individual that was impersonating a Sheriff’s officer and pulling people over. Several people were duped by this fake deputy, although I don’t think anyone was ever hurt. Suffice it to say that people can fake a police uniform in a way that can trick, or at least confuse people in the public.
You cited me to a conservative blog on the three fifths issue. There are competing historical references on this, as some say there were those in the North pushing for full personhood for slaves as a first step towards ending slavery. That’s what pushed the South to the compromise. Not counting slaves at all made their population too small. Counting them fully made them people instead of property. There was a divide even in the North about how to handle that. That’s what I was pointing to. They wanted the political influence that counting slaves gave them (about 50% more seats in Congress), but didn’t want to risk putting slaves on equal footing by considering them as equal people. Perhaps the South didn’t “create” the 3/5 compromise and I used poor word choice there, but there is no doubt that the South wanted to count slaves for political purposes without having to consider them equally.
I live in Kansas, so as a minority my voice is rarely heard. Our own legislature goes out of its way to ensure that since many minority groups do not vote for the preferred Kansas party. In 2012, redistricting legislation was introduced by the Senate to include Wyandotte County (heavily populated by African Americans) in the First Congressional District (made up of Western Kansas). Nevermind that Wyandotte County is on the Eastern border of the state, or that Manhattan and the surrounding areas offered enough precincts to meet the population requirements, this legislation was introduced and debated on the Senate floor to effectively eliminate the political voice of heavily minority and democratic voting Wyandotte County. Obviously, this plan was ultimately rejected because there were fears that the gerrymandering would cause the court to throw out the entire Kansas plan and draw it’s own districts (this happened anyway for state house and senate districts), but the fact that the Senate even brought that plan to the floor speaks volumes.
Also, go back and read about Trump and the Central Park 5. We have a president elect that I am pretty sure doesn’t care about me or have to think about my existence.
-
I will comment on the two issues.
First, information published subsequent to the initial report now indicates that the person that voiced the original complaint had a problem having and armed “police officer” in class which indicates that he/she knew the student in question was indeed a police officer and not just an armed man; so, the theory that he could have been an impersonator goes out the window. Second. the professor involved teaches “Criminal Science,” this is what people that want to work in law enforcement study. Amazing that a professor that teaches this curriculum did not not know what was or was not legals and had to make phone calls to get the information. All he had to do, if there was any doubt about his identity, was to ask him to show his police identification…it is not like he was a stranger that wandered into that classroom, he was a fully enrolled student. The fact that the school apologized to the police officer appears to corroborate what I wrote.
On the three fifths issue, I learned that fact a long time ago and since then I have done a fair amount of research on the subject, since this subject comes up often, and just about every respectable study on the subject backs what I wrote. A couple of years ago, I had this conversation with my son in law, who happens to be Black American, and much like you, he had learned the other version on the three fifths topic. A few days later he mentioned that after our conversation he did extensive research on the subject since my version went against everything he had believed his entire adult life. He indicated that the version I mentioned now appeared to him to be the correct one and made more sense and history proved that to be the case. The three fifth amendment kept the South from getting a majority and legislation to end slavery was eventually passed by the slimmest of margins; had they been counted as four fifths instead, the South would have had a majority and the law would have taken a lot longer to be changed .
The alternate version is better known because it is used frequently by race baiters since if fits the narrative that white people are racists much better, even when the actual facts prove it otherwise. I can cite dozens of reputable studies on the subject that support my version…but why do it? I don’t claim my version is correct or the only valid one, only that the facts and subsequent history appear TO ME to validate it. We all believe in what we believe and no amount of writing will change that. I don’t have an issue if you prefer to believe the version you present is the correct one, frankly, it is none of my business, we simply politely agree to disagree like two reasonable adults.
-
@JayHawkFanToo @justanotherfan In my role as spectator, I believe you both have made excellent points, but both of you generalize about the motives of the Founders and of the people in each region. Not everything can be viewed through lenses focusing on results as if they had single causes or as if the actors had united beliefs one way or the other.
Neither of you addressed what to me is the most important fact in all this: If the 3/5 clause were solely due to racism, then free blacks would not have counted more than slaves in either the North or South. This suggests that the Convention was more concerned about the number of slaves in the South than about their race.
On the other hand, the fact is that over time, the Clause was used by many bigots to denigrate blacks. I have personally heard people cite it as “proof” that blacks are not equal to whites. That those people are idiots is unimportant, because they press their views just as much as anybody. Like the Confederate battle flag, 3/5 is an historical relic which, although perhaps not accurately, nevertheless symbolizes one race’s lengthy holding of another race in bondage.
Technicalities are important in law and science. In culture clashes, symbols are much more important, and awareness of millions of persons’ sensitivities does not require corrupting one’s soul. Truth contains both fact and belief.
