How democrats could win at least 270 electoral votes with fair certainty

Author: TheUnderdog 1 year ago

Posts

Total: 39

Topic's author

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

09.16.2023 08:57PM

Gavin Newsom can in theory send blue voters from California into battleground states for the pourpose of turning them blue while still giving California be fairly blue (because it is one of the bluest and the biggest state in the country). These people would be American Citizens, so they can’t be sent back to California. There are probably some hardcore blue California voters that would be happy to move to battleground states to turn them blue in exchange for financial compensation. Move them to slightly red districts to turn them blue.

Every red state either doesn’t have a lot of people (North Dakota, Wyoming) or is not very red (Texas, Florida) and if they aren’t too red, then sending red voters into states to make them redder would possibly cause their state to turn blue. California and NY don’t have this problem.

Newsom runs for POTUS and the left base gives him credit for it.

Best.Korea

Debates: 413

Posts: 12,563

Best.Korea

09.16.2023 09:01PM

I am still amazed that person can win elections while losing popular vote.

Like, winning place with 51% votes counts same as winning it with 99% votes. Its 1 point in any case.

Not to mention places with different populations counting as same...

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 27,715

Greyparrot

09.16.2023 09:37PM

Well, as long as we have a critical mass of WAPO idiots, Biden will certainly be the only one allowed to run.

ponikshiy

Debates: 9

Posts: 604

ponikshiy

09.17.2023 12:50PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

This is not theory. People are leaving California in droves because of all the scoundrels, the high price of homes and because it is just too hot. They are going to parts of the country with good policies such as Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada

Dr.Franklin

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,813

Dr.Franklin

09.17.2023 04:05PM

That and immigration

sadolite

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,380

sadolite

09.17.2023 04:50PM

-->

@ponikshiy

They will just turn those states into the shithole they left just like the immigrants will turn the entire country into the shitholes they left. As predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. One more election cycle and Texas will be blue and turned into another California.

Best.Korea

Debates: 413

Posts: 12,563

Best.Korea

09.17.2023 05:33PM

-->

@sadolite

Hey, migrants are humans too. Dont hate them.

sadolite

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,380

sadolite

09.17.2023 05:48PM

-->

@Best.Korea

I don't hate anyone. Just stating the obvious. Truth doesn't give a shit about your feelings. The fifty individual states are no different than individual countries. They all have their own culture and way of doing things. When you immigrate to another state or country and expect that state or country to bow down to you and the culture you left, which nearly all immigrants expect, that is the end of that state or country. It becomes the shithole you left. In other words when you move to another country or state you assimilate to their culture and way of doing things. You don't try and make them bow to you and what you left behind.

Best.Korea

Debates: 413

Posts: 12,563

Best.Korea

09.17.2023 07:07PM

-->

@sadolite

Truth doesn't give a shit about your feelings

But I am special.

#10

Best.Korea

Debates: 413

Posts: 12,563

Best.Korea

09.17.2023 07:08PM

-->

@sadolite

You don't try and make them bow to you and what you left behind.

Of course I do. The world must bow to me.

#11

sadolite

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,380

sadolite

09.18.2023 10:49AM

-->

@Best.Korea

You are just troll garbage.

#12

Best.Korea

Debates: 413

Posts: 12,563

Best.Korea

09.18.2023 11:18AM

-->

@sadolite

True, but you still love me.

#13

Double_R

Debates: 3

Posts: 5,776

Double_R

09.18.2023 03:03PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Gavin Newsom can in theory send blue voters from California into battleground states for the pourpose of turning them blue while still giving California be fairly blue (because it is one of the bluest and the biggest state in the country).

How exactly can a Governor “send” american citizens to other states?

#14

ponikshiy

Debates: 9

Posts: 604

ponikshiy

09.18.2023 10:05PM

-->

@Best.Korea

I thought if wylted won you would stop trolling. Now even randos not in an election break election promises.

#15

ponikshiy

Debates: 9

Posts: 604

ponikshiy

09.18.2023 10:06PM

-->

@Double_R

Well FDR gets the blame but it was really state governors turning away Japanese descended citizens in your country, which is why the government camps were even needed

#16

ponikshiy

Debates: 9

Posts: 604

ponikshiy

09.18.2023 10:07PM

Also terrible policies. If they turn california into California, perhaps people seek states that are not shit holes.

#17

Best.Korea

Debates: 413

Posts: 12,563

Best.Korea

09.18.2023 10:11PM

-->

@ponikshiy

I thought if wylted won you would stop trolling

Yeah, I thought so too.

29 days later

Topic's author

#18

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

10.18.2023 06:27PM

-->

@ponikshiy

People are leaving California in droves because of all the scoundrels, the high price of homes and because it is just too hot. They are going to parts of the country with good policies such as Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada

The only Californians who think Texas, Oklahoma, and Nevada have good policies are right wing and libertarian Californians.

I'm talking about Gavin Newsom turning battleground states and states with small populations blue by sending hardcore blue California voters to these states.

In his interests, why doesn't he do that? Then the GOP would have to advocate for abolishing the electoral college; because the person with the most votes should win no matter where those voters are located.

Topic's author

#19

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

10.18.2023 06:27PM

-->

@Double_R

How exactly can a Governor “send” american citizens to other states?

With their consent.

#20

Double_R

Debates: 3

Posts: 5,776

Double_R

10.19.2023 12:11PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Then he/she didn't send them, they left.

#21

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 27,715

Greyparrot

10.19.2023 12:39PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

because the person with the most votes should win no matter where those voters are located.

And that will then be the end of the Republic of States, as America would also eventually abolish the Senate for the same exact reasons for abolishing the electoral college. Not that this is a bad thing, California has expressed a desire to balkanize for decades.

#22

IlDiavolo

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,772

IlDiavolo

10.19.2023 02:19PM

-->

@Best.Korea

But I am special.

Yes, you are special... a special kid. Lol.

#23

Best.Korea

Debates: 413

Posts: 12,563

Best.Korea

10.19.2023 02:21PM

-->

@IlDiavolo

I am not kid.

#24

ponikshiy

Debates: 9

Posts: 604

ponikshiy

10.19.2023 02:31PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

In his interests, why doesn't he do that? Then the GOP would have to advocate for abolishing the electoral college; because the person with the most votes should win no matter where those voters are located

Nobody serious would advocate for abolishing the electoral college. The United States created a system meant to get equal representation and making the voted of rural America not count wouldn't accomplish that. The primaries help with representation a bit because then democrats in red areas and Republicans in blue areas can make sure the presidential candidate they help get elected will have their interests in mind, but electing a presidential candidate that can literally only tour big cities and ignore the needs of rural areas isn't going to be fair. Besides that there are pragmatic challenges in close elections as well. A close election nationwide would require a ridiculous nationwide recount, while an electoral system can limit the recounts and other nightmares to an isolated area.

If republicans ever support a popular vote than they are either evil or stupid, because it just isn't practical. I wouldn't call your average American stupid for supporting a popular vote but politicians have 49l0 hours a week to study policy and impacts of policy and should know better

#25

HistoryBuff

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,222

HistoryBuff

10.19.2023 04:16PM

-->

@ponikshiy

Nobody serious would advocate for abolishing the electoral college. The United States created a system meant to get equal representation and making the voted of rural America not count wouldn't accomplish that.

you seem to misunderstand. The current system does not give equal representation. It gives people in rural areas like 4x-6x more representation than people in cities. A vote in kansas is worth many times more than a vote in california or texas. This skews the government into not actually trying to represent the majority of their people because they know they can win by only trying to appeal to certain minority sections of it.

electing a presidential candidate that can literally only tour big cities and ignore the needs of rural areas isn't going to be fair

why? A candidate shouldn't be able to win by appealing to the large majority of americans? You don't seem to be describing "fair". you are describing giving certain people much more power at the expense of others.

If republicans ever support a popular vote than they are either evil or stupid, because it just isn't practical.

lots of countries use that sort of system. It is much more simple and practical.

#26

ponikshiy

Debates: 9

Posts: 604

ponikshiy

10.19.2023 04:42PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

. A vote in kansas is worth many times more than a vote in california or texas.

Do you just respond without understanding the argument the other side is making? Zero effort on your part?

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.

Did you notice that big city people often need more government regulations as a result of living in close proximity to a lot of other people where rights can bump up against each other, while rural people who live 5 miles from their closest neighbors need less regulation for example on things like guns given their 20 minute police response time in their area? Or the city dweller needs to be more concerned about he homeless encroaching on their door step so typically want more social welfare programs?

Big cities have enough influence that both parties must consider their needs. Rural areas have enough influence that both parties have to reach out to them. This is how Bill Ckinton and Donald Trump both won the rust belt.

If a side only appeals to big city people like Jillary Clinton or only appeals to the rural type such as John McCain than they will lose.

A popular vote would allow Las Angela's to decide every election, and a popular vote gets even more stupid when you look at how much of a mess Florida's recount process was in the Bush Gore election. If we have a nationwide recount, you have to hand count 150 million votes. That may work for a small regionally close country like Ireland, It isn't going to work for the United States.

It's always children who think this is a good ideal. It just isn't. You probably also believe in term limits. There is usually a pattern with immature voters who just know what policies sound right without ever looking at why we have those policies to start with. Left or right side of the aisle doesn't matter, immature voters will typically believe all of the following g things

1. Electoral college bad

2. Term limit good

3. Powerful military bad

Those 3 issues alone pretty much prove horse shoe theory

#27

HistoryBuff

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,222

HistoryBuff

10.19.2023 06:10PM

-->

@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.

ok, if those 10 cities made up the majority of the population of the country, why is that a problem? Why should 10% of the country get to dictate policy to the other 90%?

It's not about an individuals voting power. You already know this if you read my argument.

I did read your argument, it was dumb. Basically, you want voters is rural areas to have significant political power even though they are a tiny percent of the population. thus allowing minorities to dictate policy to the majority. That is a bad system.

If we have a nationwide recount, you have to hand count 150 million votes.

I don't see how this is any different than the current system. If there are electoral irregularities you have to recount the votes. Why would eliminating the electoral collage somehow mean you have to recount all of them instead of just in the area where there was an irregularity?

1. Electoral college bad

yes, yes it is. unless you are part of the minority and you want to enforce your views on the majority. Then it's great because your vote counts for like 6 times what other people's votes count for.

2. Term limit good

I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, you have people like mitch McConnel or Nancy Pelosi who have been in their positions so long that even if they once wanted what was best for people, they have long since forgotten that. They are only looking out for what is best for them and/or their party, the rest of the country be damned.

On the other hand, you have examples of people who have been there much shorter amounts of time who are even worse, like Mat Gaetz. You would also force out experienced people who actually do want what's best for people, like Bernie Sanders. So there are serious downsides to term limits.

Powerful military bad

there is nothing wrong with a powerful military. there is something wrong with spending more on the military than the next 9 top spenders in the world combined (several of which are US allies).

Topic's author

#28

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

10.20.2023 09:23PM

-->

@Double_R

So then encouraging them to leave California and turn other states blue.

I like being an ideological minority in my state; it makes me feel edgy as hell.

Topic's author

#29

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

10.20.2023 09:31PM

-->

@Greyparrot

And that will then be the end of the Republic of States, as America would also eventually abolish the Senate for the same exact reasons for abolishing the electoral college.

I think the senate should be proportional to population as well; it is already proportional to population in all of the states; it's not like every county within a state has exactly the same amount of senators.

California has expressed a desire to balkanize for decades.

California, Maricopa County, and Los Angelos County should all balkanize.

California should split up into the state of Silicon (North of the 36 parallel) and the state of Holly (short for Hollywood, which would be the rest of the state). They are just different areas and they both have a population comparable to NY state EACH. I think South New England (CT, MA, RI) should merge to be the state of New England. They are too small I think by land area and their combined population is about half that of NY state.

I'm glad we agree on that.

Topic's author

#30

TheUnderdog

Debates: 5

Posts: 4,340

TheUnderdog

10.20.2023 10:00PM

-->

@ponikshiy

Nobody serious would advocate for abolishing the electoral college.

Why? The electoral college is Affirmative action for states that couldn't attract a lot of people to them.

The United States created a system meant to get equal representation and making the voted of rural America not count wouldn't accomplish that.

The rural vote still counts; 19% of Americans live in rural areas (29% live in urban areas). The majority lives in the suburbs, which are persuadable.

The primaries help with representation a bit because then democrats in red areas and Republicans in blue areas can make sure the presidential candidate they help get elected will have their interests in mind

The primaries make politicians initially appeal only to their base if they want to win. Realistically, the person that spends the most amount on the primary almost always wins due to name recognition. But primaries shouldn't exist because they only give voters 2 options; voters should have many options, all listed on a website stating the candidate's main policies that they would want if they got elected, and rank choice voting is used if no candidate gets 50%.

but electing a presidential candidate that can literally only tour big cities and ignore the needs of rural areas isn't going to be fair.

Democrats AND republicans pretty much only tour big and small cities (defined as at least 20,000 people); that's where most of the people are; people from rural areas that want to go to a rally can go anytime they want. And due to television, rural Americans can see what politicians advocate for and either like it or don't. They can send an email to a politician's campaign. If Trump wanted to make rural America better, he would do town halls, where voters ask him a question and he responds honestly. He does rallies (and I don't have an issue with this) and he could advocate a lot of things and his base loves him so much to where they would eat it up. Trump could say something like, "Don't get me started on Woke Big Tech. Woke Big Tech has too much power over our free speech; they are too big! Tax woke big Tech and these globalist Silicon Valley oligarchs and use the money to fund healthcare for the American Patriots! Copy ISRAEL; fund healthcare for American Patriots and COPY then on abortion; we are with the beloved nation of ISRAEL on abortion!" and his base would eat it up (even though he advocated for Universal healthcare and legalized abortion). If Bernie Sanders does the same thing, the GOP hates him for it. If Trump does it, they all love him, provided he uses right wing ethos already established to make his point and the base eats it up not realizing they agreed with Bernie Sanders (who IS Jewish, just like Israel is). Israel compared to Palestine is a very leftist country on LGBT, abortion, and Medicare for all. When the right gave up on the homosexuality debate temporarily, they praised Israel for being pro LGBT and not Palestine/Arabs. If the right wing matrix wanted to concede the abortion debate as well, they could point to how ISRAEL is leading the way on western values/leftist values in the middle east by legalizing abortion; the matrix could promote women that got abortions that are big supporters of Israel and western civilization and "building the wall" and even though the GOP believes they committed murder right now, they would eat that coverage up. They don't even have to regret their abortion; Arielle Scarcella isn't ashamed to be lesbian; she wears that on her sleeve and she touts other right wing talking points that make the GOP base not care that she is a lesbian (even though 10 years ago, they were claiming LGBT people were going to hell). If you say your one left wing thing and a bunch of right wing things and you look good while doing it, the right doesn't care because they don't have principles; they just follow the vibes.

Besides that there are pragmatic challenges in close elections as well. A close election nationwide would require a ridiculous nationwide recount, while an electoral system can limit the recounts and other nightmares to an isolated area.

Recounts are easy to do; machines do them.

If republicans ever support a popular vote than they are either evil or stupid

Is it just because you want the GOP to win elections? What party benefits SHOULDN'T MATTER!

If there are no primaries and it's just one general election of 20 or so candidates with their top stances on a government website, it would be virtually impossible to win without appealing to people who aren't your #1, #2, or even #3 voters. We may get someone like Rand Paul or Andrew Yang instead of Trump or Biden.