-->
@Double_R
And it would be coordinated by Newsom.
How democrats could win at least 270 electoral votes with fair certainty
Posts
Total:
39
-->
@ponikshiy
This is it just you focusing on an individuals vote. Rural Americans would have their needs completely ignored in your system. A politician could just let the 10 biggest cities completely decide an election and literally ignore the people who are not in those specific 10 cities. It's not about an individuals voting power. You already know this if you read my argument. People come from different areas and have different daily struggles and needs as a result of that.
People are always going to have different struggles and needs, that's the entire point of a representative system of government.
Here's a question for you... It's estimated that about 1% of the population is autistic. Given that these individuals have different needs, and given that they make up such a small chunk of the population politicians have little to no incentive to pay any attention to them, do you support a system which singles these individuals out in order to give their votes more power thereby forcing politicians to pay closer attention to them? Cause otherwise they'd be ignored right? What about amputees? What about diabetics? What about the homeless? How exactly do you go about deciding which group of people deserve to be prioritized by our political system if not the simple concept of one person one vote?
Second question; you say that the problem with a popular vote system is that the needs of certain voters would be ignored. Ok, so when was the last time a presidential candidate visited rural New York? Or urban Missouri? Who on a national level has ever paid attention to their needs? Why is it that the same 6 or seven states every election get 90% of the attention while the other 40+ states just have to sit back and wait to see what happens? How exactly is that fair in your view?
-->
@TheUnderdog
So then encouraging them to leave California and turn other states blue.
The idea of being a governor is to serve the needs of your residents, not to encourage them to leave.
I like being an ideological minority in my state; it makes me feel edgy as hell.
I prefer to just be on the right side of an issue.
To each his own.
-->
@Double_R
The idea of being a governor is to serve the needs of your residents, not to encourage them to leave.
If he wants democrats to easily win many battleground states, it makes sense for him to do this.
I prefer to just be on the right side of an issue.
I do as well (assuming you mean correct and not right wing when you said right), but that means being a little edgy. Like my state banned polygamy and I'm like, "What if we legalized it in the name of freedom?"
I wouldn't be as contrarian as to defend the KKK or Nazis, but you know, "What if we did this, what if we did that?"
It's because of that that I like conspiracy theorists. They challenge authority and you need people like that.
-->
@Double_R
I prefer to just be on the right side of an issue.
So did Hitler's supporters. The "wrong side" usually meant immediate death or worse.
-->
@Greyparrot
So did Hitler's supporters. The "wrong side" usually meant immediate death or worse.
Hitler's supporters are perhaps the most cliche example in history of what being on the wrong side of an issue looks like. Self preservation had nothing to do with this.
-->
@Double_R
You are right, I should have used a more contemporary group such as the woke mob using the fear of cancellations to get everyone on "the right side" (the winning side)
It is no act of ethical courage to trade your moral beliefs for security. Rarely does might (the winning or "right" side) accurately equate to what is right. That's another overused motto thoroughly unexamined.
"being on the right side of history" more accurately historically translates to being on the right side of a grave than the side of any moral platitude.
-->
@Double_R
History is replete with countless examples where people chose at the time to be on the right side of history, only to discover later that history and society evolves in ways they cannot possibly imagine, where today's heroes are tomorrow's villains. Instead of making a judgement based on an uncertain future, you should make the most ethical choice today, in every case, and leave the future history predictions out of it. You will most likely be judged by future historians to be as wrong as everyone else at some point anyway. So it's useless to avoid that reality by pretending a world exists where there is an objective "right side."
-->
@Greyparrot
It is no act of ethical courage to trade your moral beliefs for security. Rarely does might (the winning or "right" side) accurately equate to what is right.
You aren't hearing a word I'm saying.
I'm not talking about the "winning side". I'm talking about being in the right side - as in what is right, not as in whatever side is winning, not as in whatever side will be looked back upon as having won, not as in whatever works best for self preservation.