Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, February 23, 2019

The residents of most U.S. states are more likely to identify as conservative than as liberal in their political ideology. In 25 states, the conservative advantage is significantly greater than the national average, including 19 "highly conservative" states in which conservatives outnumber liberals by at least 20 percentage points. Meanwhile, in six states, there are more liberals than conservatives.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

And people wonder why the Left wants to get rid of the Electoral College...

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-22 07:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Not all states have the same population but you already know that that's why you're not posting the names of the states.

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2019-02-22 07:57 PM | Reply

Too lazy to click on the link?

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-22 07:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

$2

Take it up with the Drudgelord to change the character limit or click the link, you lazy, incurious bastard. ☺

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-22 08:01 PM | Reply

#2

And besides, I did post the 6 states that were more liberal to make it easier for retorters that are afraid to click on links, half of which are the among the smallest states in the US.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-22 08:03 PM | Reply

I'm starting to think FakeLawyer is a Ruskie.....

#6 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-22 08:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What I thought was most notable about this Gallup Poll wasn't the ideological split but the size of the Moderate column in each State, which outnumbered either conservatives or liberals in all but 16 States.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-22 08:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#6 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON

I think he's more likely just one of their useful idiots.

#8 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-22 08:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Alternate headline; Conservatives Outnumber Liberals In Low Population States No One Wants To Live In.

#9 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-22 08:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 3

Too lazy to click on the link?

#3 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Except he was right. It's mostly backwater states with high welfare utilization.

I'm guessing a tally of the EC votes puts it in the range of one of the large blue states.

This is a big yawn. Telling also that the fact that the national conservative liberal percentage gap fell from 21% in the early 2000s to 9% now was neglected to be mentioned.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-22 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advertisement

Advertisement

And people wonder why the Left wants to get rid of the Electoral College...

#1 | POSTED BY CRYIN TED CRUZ

And no one wonders why conservatives are so against western democracy.

#11 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-22 08:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#10

It's mostly backwater states with high welfare utilization.

Yeah, like Indiana (+22). Texas (+18), Ohio (+15), Florida (+14), Michigan (+10), Pennsyvania (+10), Virginia (+9) etc.

'm guessing a tally of the EC votes puts it in the range of one of the large blue states.

Wrong, in fact, considering the fact that California is (0) the EC range overwhelmingly is in the Conservative's favor, only NY makes it even worth talking about.

Telling also that the fact that the national conservative liberal percentage gap fell from 21% in the early 2000s to 9% now was neglected to be mentioned.

Like I said, it is in the Gallup survey, I can only fit so many characters in the summary.

The gap may have fell, but it is still +9 conservative.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-22 08:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The gap may have fell, but it is still +9 conservative."

That's like saying we've lost more than half our altitude and are still descending rather quickly, but no worries, we have 9,000 more feet to go until we crash.

(As Ishmael explained it.)

Did anyone make Eberly read Ishmael? He would love it.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-22 09:03 PM | Reply

Yeah, like Indiana (+22). Texas (+18), Ohio (+15), Florida (+14), Michigan (+10), Pennsyvania (+10), Virginia (+9) etc.

I was considering only the bright red states where "Conservatives" dominate.

The others mentioned are as moderate as they are "Conservative".

And when it comes down to it, I go with the folks who walk away from the fruit punch vs blueberry kool aid argument because they prefer something else.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-22 09:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The same states that tax more federal money than they provide.

#15 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-02-23 10:39 AM | Reply

And people wonder why the Right wants to keep the Electoral College that over-counts the rural vote and waters down the urban vote...

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-23 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Alternative headline:

The more desolate a state is, the more conservative it is.

Mississippi? Alabama? South Dakota? Wyoming?

Who cares about those states. The nation would be better off without them.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-23 02:02 PM | Reply

#14

Cherry (Kool-Aid) Picking at its finest.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-23 02:02 PM | Reply

Hrc won the popular vote.

#19 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-23 04:05 PM | Reply

Let's be clear here. Nulli and RoC are not conservatives. They are conservitard Trump butt kissers.

#20 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-23 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

All states with angry white men trying to justify their pathetic lives.

Killing themselves in record numbers... all we have to do is wait for the attrition.

#21 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-23 05:41 PM | Reply

oh...
Trumplethinskin is still leaving in disgrace so the percentages don't matter.

#22 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-23 05:42 PM | Reply

Its funny how all those "conservative" hate "socialism" yet don't want anyone to touch "their social security". Its actually another glaring example of the cognitive dissonance that they excel at.

#23 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-23 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Hrc won the popular vote by winning California by 4 Million votes

FTFY, which is also kind of the point of the Poll.

Thanks for playing.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-23 08:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Thanks for playing.

#24 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-02-23 08:52 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Fake conservative. Shut your pie hole.

#25 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-23 09:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Cherry (Kool-Aid) Picking at its finest.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter

If that's what you want to call it, be my guest.

For those of us willing to think about data sets independently, one would see that the dominant group in most states is independents.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-23 09:46 PM | Reply

For those of us willing to think about data sets independently, one would see that the dominant group in most states is independents.

You obviously missed my #7.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-23 09:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#25

Sorry that facts scare you so much Bruthe.

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-23 09:51 PM | Reply

You obviously missed my #7.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter

I did. Apologies.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-23 10:01 PM | Reply

#29

No worries.

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-23 10:07 PM | Reply

#23 Viking,

Social Security? The reason people want it is because they are forced to pay FICA taxes their entire working life to fund it. SS is not Socialism.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-23 11:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And people wonder why the Right wants to keep the Electoral College that over-counts the rural vote and waters down the urban vote...

The left wants to impose it will on an area that's thousands of miles away. Those people dont vote like you, get over it.

Just because your state has an overage of people voting one way doesnt mean you can take some of that overage and put it on my state totals.

Dems won California. Good for California. Just because they won it by 4 million doesnt mean you can take those 4 million for Alabama. Our EC makes sure these smaller states have a voice that cannot be silenced by over-population somewhere else.

#32 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 02:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

There are no actual conservatives under Trump.

#33 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-24 03:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#32 dude. Seriously, before you comment again read up on how our elections and government works.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-24 10:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#32 | Posted by boaz

Stow it, dimwit.

We all know you'd be singing a different tune if the circumstances were reversed.

#35 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-02-24 11:27 AM | Reply

"The left wants to impose it will on an area that's thousands of miles away. "

The Founders did the same; you don't seem to have a problem with it.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-24 01:45 PM | Reply

And people wonder why the Left wants to get rid of the Electoral College...

I see you're one of the dopes who can't stomach the idea of having each vote count equally in a presidential election.

Instead you want a voter in Wyoming to have 3.6 times as much power to pick a president as a voter in California.

I guess you realize Republicans have become such corrupt, anti-democratic, self-serving pieces of ---- they can't win a popular vote any more. So you want the Electoral College to prop up second choice losers like Donnie Dumbass.

#37 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 05:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

We all know you'd be singing a different tune if the circumstances were reversed.

It's fun to watch him pretend that he's reasoned this one through and come down in favor of apportioning voting power on the basis of cow proximity.

Just once I'd like to see a Republican admit he supports the Electoral College because Republicans are more likely to lose a popular vote than Democrats.

They want the White House to be a participation trophy for their side.

#38 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 05:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Trump only won NC by 3%. (49% Trump, 46% Hillary)

Yet Boaz pretends NC is some sort of republican bastion.

Can't fix stupid.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-24 05:32 PM | Reply

Is there a coorelation between having a history of being a slave owning State and being pro-Trump? ...The numbers don't lie.

#40 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 05:43 PM | Reply

The founders foresaw exactly today's Dem whining about the EC...i.e. mob rule.

#41 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-02-24 05:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I am so tired of people, especially right wingers, glossing over the obvious correlation between White Supremacy beliefs and Trump supporters. It could not be any more obvious. But no one wants to hear about. And right wingers certainly do not want to learn about it. There is a direct correlation between hating people of color and supporting Donald Trump.

#42 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 06:00 PM | Reply

Headline is garbage as is the link.

Don't pretend for a second that Rhode Island and Texas have the same population.

#43 | Posted by Tor at 2019-02-24 06:05 PM | Reply

#43

We heard your whine the first time, no one is pretending that they are the same, after all, Rhode Island is only +4 conservative while Texas is +18.

If you have a problem, take it up with Gallup.

#44 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 06:20 PM | Reply

I see you're one of the dopes who can't stomach the idea of having each vote count equally in a presidential election.

And I can see you are one of the dopes who can't stomach the idea that while Hillary won the coasts, the rest of the country, by design, got a chance to have a say in who became President.

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 06:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The whole point on this poll, which I think only JPW grasped, is that while voter identification, as a whole is more conservative than liberal, it is the middle that makes the decisions.

As Bill Clinton recognized, whomever gets to the Middle in the GE wins, which is something that Hillary failed to do.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 06:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Doesn't matter RoC... Trumplethinskin is leaving office in disgrace... take the poo,l after that happens and see the results... anotyher sudden influx of libertaricl*wns

#47 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-24 06:25 PM | Reply

And I can see you are one of the dopes who can't stomach the idea that while Hillary won the coasts, the rest of the country, by design, got a chance to have a say in who became President.

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter

Do you think any one person's vote for president should matter more than any other person's vote?

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-24 06:27 PM | Reply

Do you think any one person's vote for president should matter more than any other person's vote?

Within each State, no. But each State should have proportional say, in a huge country of 300+ Million people, based on their populace.

Guess what, that is how the system was designed and works.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 06:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Do you think any one person's vote for president should matter more than any other person's vote?

Yes, mine is the only one that should really matter.

#50 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-02-24 06:38 PM | Reply

I know it freaks you all out, but people in North Dakota are very different from people in Vermont, who are very different from people in Texas, who are very different from people in Maine...etc.

The founding fathers recognized these differences with only 13 States and devised a mechanism to give them all a say in who became President.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 06:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#47

You can always tell when Rusty Scupper is freaking out because the typos increase exponentially.

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 06:40 PM | Reply

Do you think any one person's vote for president should matter more than any other person's vote?

They dont.

Why should a mob in two states always decide who the President is?

#53 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 06:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz: Answer the friggin' question. Do you think any one person's vote for president should matter more than any other person's vote?

Stop using deflection as your coward's way out.

#54 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 06:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why should a mob in two states always decide who the President is?" - #53 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 06:43 PM

A "mob in two states" decided Barack Obama should be the President?

Twice?

History according to private boazotoes.

#55 | Posted by Hans at 2019-02-24 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A "mob in two states" decided Barack Obama should be the President?
Twice?

Don't tell Boaz but NC went for Obama in 2008

#56 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-02-24 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Boaz: Answer the friggin' question. Do you think any one person's vote for president should matter more than any other person's vote?

I did. Read #53 until you understand.

Don't tell Boaz but NC went for Obama in 2008

Obama won the Electoral College, like a federation of states decides who the executive is. The states are separate, if you idiots didnt know that.

#57 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 06:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#56

Which makes my point: the majority of voters in a traditional GOP stronghold like NC wanted Barack Obama to be President and helped make it happen.

#58 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 06:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And I can see you are one of the dopes who can't stomach the idea that while Hillary won the coasts, the rest of the country, by design, got a chance to have a say in who became President.

You think a vote near an ocean should count less than a vote that is not adjacent to ocean?

How many dopey ideas are you going to introduce into this discussion to avoid admitting that "one person one vote" is the best way to run a democratic election and electing second-choice losers damages the legitimacy of the presidency?

Why not just say that you think a vote in a Republican area should count more than one a Democratic area?

The founding fathers recognized these differences with only 13 States and devised a mechanism to give them all a say in who became President.

The founding fathers, for all of their virtues, were agrarian white male slave ------- hoping to permanently tilt the board in favor of people like themselves. Let's not pretend that guys in powdered wigs who ---- in chamber pots were omniscient about how their electoral system would play out in 20GODDAM19.

#59 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 07:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You think a vote near an ocean should count less than a vote that is not adjacent to ocean?

Not at all, but do you think that the person who lives next to an ocean is going to have the same interests and priorities as the person who lives on a farm 1000 miles from an ocean?

How many dopey ideas are you going to introduce into this discussion to avoid admitting that "one person one vote" is the best way to run a democratic election and electing second-choice losers damages the legitimacy of the presidency?

How many dopey ideas are you going to introduce into this discussion to avoid admitting that your version of "one person one vote" means that the best way to run a national election is to allow the State of California to elect the President of the United States? Don't forget, I live in California and while I love my State, I recognize that is a horrible idea for the rest of the country.

I'm not going to reprint the rest of your freakout...take a deep breath and count to 100. Most historians and political scientists disagree with you.

#60 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 07:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Which makes my point: the majority of voters in a traditional GOP stronghold like NC ...

You don't care about the majority of voters in the United States. Why do you care about the majority of voters in a state?

Your logic supports giving rural counties more voting power than urban counties, not just rural states over urban states.

Under the self-serving logic Boaz trots out every time the EC is discussed, you have to give people in sparsely populated places extra voting power or they won't have their say in an election. The idea they should have a say when they get fewer votes, while those who get more votes should have no say, is never explained.

#61 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 07:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You think a vote near an ocean should count less than a vote that is not adjacent to ocean?

No, we dont look at it in terms of geography, we look at it as how our local state-mates feel. You know, how our culture sees it. My states votes shouldnt count votes for you no more than your state's votes should count for me..

#62 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 07:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Not at all, but do you think that the person who lives next to an ocean is going to have the same interests and priorities as the person who lives on a farm 1000 miles from an ocean?

I think one vote should count the same as another vote no matter where in America it was cast.

Most historians and political scientists disagree with you.

You must have counted them the same second-is-first way you count votes. Plenty of historians and political scientists call the Electoral College an anti-democratic dumpster fire. They can't practice outcome-based logic like Republicans and conclude, "The system that helps us win is the best system."

Stop pretending you cry yourself to sleep at night over the idea a voter in Cousin-----------, North Dakota, might be outvoted by two Californians.

#63 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 07:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I think one vote should count the same as another vote no matter where in America it was cast.

There are plenty of pure, mob democracies in the world. Ours is not one of them. Our founding fathers knew the flaws of a mob system. Our system of voting for the executive is an almost perfect check and balance on the other two chambers of government.

#64 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 07:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

You don't care about the majority of voters in the United States. Why do you care about the majority of voters in a state?

Funny you should ask...my Political Science Degree from UCLA was focused on Constitutional Law and State and Local Government, so I studied this extensively.

Your logic supports giving rural counties more voting power than urban counties, not just rural states over urban states.

Not at all, it depends on each State: some are more rural than urban, and vice versa. For national elections, however, the counties breakout only is applicable in the few states that have apportioned EC allocation. Otherwise, all that matters in a winner take all scenario is the total vote in that State, regardless of makeup of each district.

#65 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 07:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

For Boaz: A group of people who vote different from him = mob.

He uses a perjorative term to label his ideological adversaries and pretends he is making an honest argument.

#66 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 07:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

while voter identification, as a whole is more conservative than liberal, it is the middle that makes the decisions.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Considering the Democratic candidates has won the popular vote the past 7 of 8 elections. How do you figure voter identification is more conservative than liberal?

Is it based on a bunch of desolate states being majority conservatives?

Los Angeles County has a higher population that the 20 least populated states combined.

What Republicans want everyone focused on is what ROC keeps pushing. The coasts voted for Hillary. Conveniently ignoring the coasts is where the majority of Americans live.

In the end Republicans like the EC, because without it, they'd never win an election again.

#67 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-24 07:27 PM | Reply

There are plenty of pure, mob democracies in the world. Ours is not one of them. Our founding fathers knew the flaws of a mob system.

The only thing you're advocating for is the smaller mob getting its way. Less people getting what they want. Explain why that is a good thing.

#68 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-24 07:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

For Boaz: A group of people who vote different from him = mob.

No.

For Moder8, wants to make sure a minority can never make a change he doesnt agree with.

#69 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 07:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

19 states? This will change over time as cancer spreads.

#70 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-24 07:32 PM | Reply

Less people getting what they want.

I see it as the minority not being run over and not given lip service by the mob.

#71 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 07:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

19 states? This will change over time as cancer spreads.

#70 | POSTED BY MSGT

Actually I expect this will decrease over time as the Baby Boomer generation dies off.

#72 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 07:41 PM | Reply

And once again, Boaz trots out the 'mob' language to perjoratively classify his political adversaries. What a joke.

#73 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 07:42 PM | Reply

One thing that people who are whining about the EC forget is that control of both the House and the Senate can belong to the Party whose voters also constitute a minority of the votes in the US, but no one seems to have a problem with that, especially now that the Democrats control the House. Our Democracy has never required that all votes be weighted equally. The vote of a person in a small state assumes greater significance in electing a United States Senator, for example, than does that of a person in a large state. Nor is it necessarily a problem that the Electoral College favors majorities in large industrial states. In large part, the constitutional arrangements finally agreed upon by the founders were designed to protect minorities from majority control.

This argument has been going on for decades (anyone remember the Kennedy .01 popular vote margin yet a 303-219 EC mandate that he claimed that drove the GOP nuts in 1960) and until there is a constitutional amendment to change things, will continue by the party that is out of power.

#74 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 07:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

It's like if the U.S. and China were one country separated by an ocean.. China would always make the policy because they have more people. We would never be able to have a say as the Chinese would always vote in their interests.

It's the exact same thing here. That's why we are separate states with different agenda's. And our way of electing an executive, who will have veto power over the legislative chambers ensures votes not in the majority are heard.

#75 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 07:50 PM | Reply

It is one thing for the voice of a minority to be heard. It is another thing to rig a system so that the minority gets to impose it's leader on the majority. Or is that too complicated for you to understand?

#76 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 07:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The main thing to realize about the EC (and why it will never be changed) is that it cements the two party system into power in the US: The winner-take-all feature makes it difficult for third parties to win electoral votes. A party that could command 15 or 20 percent of the vote evenly distributed across the states would receive no electoral votes (i.e. Ross Perot) and accordingly would have less incentive to run and little appeal to potential supporters. Accordingly, the Electoral College has inhibited the formation of ideological or splinter parties and has encouraged the survival of a two-party system.

No politician in either party is going to shoot themselves in the face in advocating that the EC goes away, which is why no politician advocates EC reform.

#77 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 07:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

will continue by the party that is out of power.

Will continue by the democrats whenever they lose..

#78 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 07:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Or is that too complicated for you to understand?

Is it too hard for YOU to understand that 80% of the entire country would never get it's voice heard if California and New York were the only votes that counted?

#79 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 08:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

No, we dont look at it in terms of geography, we look at it as how our local state-mates feel.

The governor of North Carolina is elected by getting the most votes.

The county commissioners of your county are elected by getting the most votes.

The mayor of your city is elected by getting the most votes.

Are you sensing a pattern here? You don't care about arbitrary subsections of a map when you choose a governor, county commissioner or mayor. A cow-proximate low population county in North Carolina gets outvoted by the ------- of people in Charlotte and this does not bother you at all.

But suddenly your party is losing the majority of voters in the U.S. and likely to keep losing in the near future, so it is a sacred principle that people in Wyoming matter 3.8 times more than people in California.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Is it too hard for YOU to understand that 80% of the entire country would never get it's voice heard if California and New York were the only votes that counted?

#79 | POSTED BY BOAZ

My god, you either incredibly thick or incredibly dishonest. Nobody is suggesting that only the votes of CA and NY be counted. Rather, what is being suggested is the novel idea that every vote be accorded the same value. One person, one vote. And the winner, be it Dem or GOP, is the winner. Period. Stop right there. No more analysis needed.

#81 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 08:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Somewhere deep in his heart, where no one else can see or ever know, I am convinced Boaz realizes that he is on the wrong side of this argument.

#82 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 08:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

One thing that people who are whining about the EC forget is that control of both the House and the Senate can belong to the Party whose voters also constitute a minority of the votes in the US, but no one seems to have a problem with that, especially now that the Democrats control the House.

Nobody forgets that the Senate can be controlled by a shrinking minority of the American people. By 2040, 70 percent of Americans are projected to live in just 15 states so 30 percent of Americans will constitute a majority in the Senate.

Now defend that too. I'm sure you think that's awesome because the Republican definition of "democracy" is "smaller side wins."

#83 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 08:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is it too hard for YOU to understand that 80% of the entire country would never get it's voice heard if California and New York were the only votes that counted?

The country is made up of people. A majority of people aren't getting their voices heard when a minority chooses the president.

#84 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 08:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Are you sensing a pattern here?

Yea, it's local, as it should be.

Somewhere deep in his heart, where no one else can see or ever know, I am convinced Boaz realizes that he is on the wrong side of this argument.

And deep in your lawyer heart, you and my journalist friend Rogers know that I am right and you see the beauty in our system of electing our National executive. I see our states as a partnership. That's what they are.

#85 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 08:17 PM | Reply

A majority of people aren't getting their voices heard when a minority chooses the president.

We are a collection of states, Rogers.

#86 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 08:18 PM | Reply

Yeah. You see our States as a partnership where the minority of the people should have the power to impose their will on the majority of the people. Got it. Say no more.

#87 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 08:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And you see the other way around with me and people like me never having a voice.

#88 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 08:24 PM | Reply

Sounds like liberals need to move to the sticks so we can have our votes count.

My only question is, do I have to clear it with the Mob first?

#89 | Posted by cbob at 2019-02-24 08:25 PM | Reply

Boaz, you seem to be having a really hard time separating the concept of "having your voice heard" from the concept of "imposing your will on the majority". Nobody is telling you not to vote. Nobody is telling you not to be heard. All that is being stated is that, at the end of the day, all votes should be equal, and the side that gets the most votes should win that particular election. And if the losing side is able to convince people that they are correct, then they should be able to get a majority of the votes and win the next election. For now, the EC is just plain old cheating used to hand victory to the losing side.

#90 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 08:29 PM | Reply

I'm not having any hard time Moder8. You are the one who doesnt understand our system of government. You seem to think our country is one. We are not. We are 50 separate areas and not all of them think the same or have the same needs.

You also dont seem to understand that if Cali and NY have say, 50K voters and the rest of the U.S. has say 10K, it never makes a difference if everyone other than Cali or NY vote, Cali and NY would always win because we would never have enough voters to overcome.

It's not that hard, Moder8.

#91 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 08:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The country is made up of people. A majority of people aren't getting their voices heard when a minority chooses the president.

POSTED BY RCADE AT 2019-02-24 08:13 PM | REPLY

I live in cow proximity country. MOOOOOOOOOO MOOOOOOOOOOO

#92 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-02-24 08:44 PM | Reply

"We are 50 separate areas ..." - #91 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-24 08:37 PM

"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is." - Shelby Foote
White people in North Carolina can no longer own black people as slaves, boazo.

That's because we are not "50 separate areas."

Live in the now.

#93 | Posted by Hans at 2019-02-24 08:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You don't care about arbitrary subsections of a map when you choose a governor, county commissioner or mayor.

The smaller the sample segment, the lower the likelihood that there is much of a radical divergence of opinion. In a state as large as California, the divergence of opinion in different segments (North v. South, Coasts v. Valleys, Tech v. MIC) can cause a similar discord as we see in National politics but since we are one State the potential for divisions is lessened. It still exists in spades, but since the State is economically healthy (and wealthy), the people out of power put up with what they perceive to be madness of the majority.

Don't forget, everything is cyclical, especially in politics. What goes around, comes around.

#94 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 08:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

We are a collection of states, Rogers.

A state is just lines on a map. There's nothing magic about 50 states. There's nothing special about Wyoming that makes its voters worth 3.6 times more voters in California.

Any of us could pack up the car and move to a new state tomorrow. This act shouldn't make us worth more or worth less as a voter for president.

You're worshiping an arbitrary anti-democratic rule because your side can't get a majority of voters to agree with you any more. You don't even have faith that might change. How sad is that?

#95 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 08:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Don't forget, everything is cyclical, especially in politics. What goes around, comes around.

#94 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I think that is really important to emphasize. The GOPhers who are screaming about how fair the EC is today, probably will be screaming the opposite tomorrow if/when the Dems take over again. So maybe, if we want intellectual honesty, we should all just take a step back and recognize that regardless of whether you are a Dem or GOP, the EC is clearly unfair. It gives added weight to some votes and diminished weight to others. If we can simply recognize that obvious truth, maybe we can work to rectify it.

#96 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-02-24 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A democracy by popular vote takes the human-geographic element out of the equation. F-it, if states are only lines on a map, why have state governments?

Let's get this dystopian train on the rails and govern from the top and only the top.

#97 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-24 09:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For those who are unaware:

Human geography is the branch of geography that deals with the study of people and their communities, cultures, economies, and interactions with the environment by studying their relations with and across space and place.

Does this matter? If this concept is immaterial to the quality of government we aim to elect, then might as well assume that Fargo, ND == Minneapolis, Minnesota.

#98 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-24 09:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

F-it, if states are only lines on a map, why have state governments?

Why have county governments? Why have city governments? Because making all responsibilities of government federal is not a great idea.

We can have states and a national vote for president. The two aren't exclusive.

#99 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 09:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Popular Sovereignty

Popular sovereignty was the political doctrine that the people who lived in a region should determine for themselves the nature of their government. In U.S. history, it was applied particularly to the idea that settlers of federal territorial lands should decide the terms under which they would join the Union, primarily applied to the status as free or slave. The first proponent of the concept was Senator Lewis Cass of Michigan, who put the idea forward while opposing the Wilmot Proviso in 1846.

Popular sovereignty was invoked in the Compromise of 1850 and later in the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854). The tragic events in "Bleeding Kansas" exposed the doctrine's shortcomings, as pro- and anti-slavery forces battled each other to effect the outcome they wished.

#100 | Posted by Hans at 2019-02-24 09:28 PM | Reply

--might as well assume that Fargo, ND == Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Or Manhattan, NY = Manhattan, Kansas.

#101 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-24 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"A democracy by popular vote takes the human-geographic element out of the equation." - #97 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-24 09:16 PM

So mayors, dog catchers, county commissioners, state legislators, US Representatives, US Senators and governors should be selected... how?

If not by popular vote?

#102 | Posted by Hans at 2019-02-24 09:32 PM | Reply

mayors, local politician, local popular vote
dog catchers, local politician, local popular vote
county commissioners, local politician, local popular vote
state legislators, local politician, local popular vote
US Representatives, local politician, local popular vote
US Senators State politician, state popular vote
governors State politician, state popular vote

In a similar sense, we use the popular vote to inform our state electors to throw state support in a direction for the executive branch.

#103 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-24 09:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

presidents national politician, national popular vote

#104 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

States come together to proportionally decide our president. I have read the seasonable arguments in support of changing our system, and understand the idea of taking away Idaho's four "cOw VoTeS," to further empower California and NY voters, but if I were somehow running for president in a popular vote system, why would I care about Vermont, Wyoming, North&South Dakota, Alaska, and Delaware? They would be relegated as useless states in a campaign due to their small populations.

#105 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-24 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

... if I were somehow running for president in a popular vote system, why would I care about Vermont, Wyoming, North&South Dakota, Alaska, and Delaware?

Nobody cares about Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska or Delaware under the current system. They only care about a handful of "swing" states.

#106 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 09:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What if the popular vote experiment goes poorly? As mentioned upthread, it would allow a break from a two party system (definitely support this aspect), but this could end up with a popularly elected person, who due to the split vote aspect, wins with 31% of the popular vote and campaigned on the premise that they would do something horrific - Eventually resulting in a Rwandan civil war in the USA type situation.

#107 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-24 09:55 PM | Reply

Nobody cares about Vermont

Whoa now, that's a Bern.

#108 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-24 09:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--What if the popular vote experiment goes poorly?

In a close race, like Kennedy-Nixon, you could have Florida-style recounts in every precinct in the country.

#109 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-24 10:00 PM | Reply

Another EC debate?

Boring.

Can't we just drop 2 EC votes from each state to balance the books? So that it's more accurately representing each states population?

#110 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-24 10:02 PM | Reply

In a close race, like Kennedy-Nixon, you could have Florida-style recounts in every precinct in the country.

"Don't do it because counting is hard" is a bad reason not to do it.

#111 | Posted by rcade at 2019-02-24 10:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Is it too hard for YOU to understand that 80% of the entire country would never get it's voice heard if California and New York were the only votes that counted?

When you say 80% of the country, are you counting space?

Because if 80% of the people voted one way (which would have to include votes from California and New York), it would pass regardless.

#112 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-24 10:08 PM | Reply

Can't we just drop 2 EC votes from each state to balance the books?

Not without amending the Constitution; something else the, and I paraphrase, "agrarian white male slave ------- in powdered wigs who ---- in chamber pots hoping to permanently tilt the board in favor of people like themselves were not so omniscient about how their ammendment system would play out in 20GODDAM19.

#113 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-02-24 10:18 PM | Reply

:-)

#114 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-02-24 10:18 PM | Reply

LOL

#115 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-24 10:29 PM | Reply

Is it too hard for YOU to understand that 80% of the entire country would never get it's voice heard if California and New York were the only votes that counted?
#79 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Did you forget about Colorado and Connecticut and Delaware and Hawaii and Illinois and Maine and Maryland and Massachusetts and Minnesota and Nevada and New Hampshire and New Jersey and New Mexico and Oregon and Rhode Island and Vermont and Virginia and Washington?

#116 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-02-24 10:46 PM | Reply

Nobody cares about Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska or Delaware under the current system. They only care about a handful of "swing" states.

Wrong. Everyone who is counting on that vote for their EC totals cares about those States, and if they go purple, they care about them even more.

The root of your problem is that Hillary didn't care about those States, and more, and is now sitting home practicing different ways to say "Abuela".

#117 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-24 11:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Maryland - Redial

I know we're mostly talking presidential elections but Maryland has a two term Republican Governor :). Not sure how he's done it, but I admire the hustle against the odds.

#118 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-25 06:33 AM | Reply

"The founding fathers, for all of their virtues, were agrarian white male slave ------- hoping to permanently tilt the board in favor of people like themselves. Let's not pretend that guys in powdered wigs who ---- in chamber pots were omniscient about how their electoral system would play out in 20GODDAM19."

Bears repeating.

#119 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-02-25 07:01 AM | Reply

No, we dont look at it in terms of geography, we look at it as how our local state-mates feel.
#62 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You do know that states are part of Geography, right?
And it's funny because you totally support a system based on made up, subjective lines of geography.

#120 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-02-25 07:55 AM | Reply

Also, it's very sad, Boaz, because your whole idea is based on the concept that everyone is as rabidly partisan as you are. I don't care if a President is elected by California or Wyoming, I expect them to be in service to ALL Americans.

#121 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-02-25 07:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The GOPhers who are screaming about how fair the EC is today, probably will be screaming the opposite tomorrow if/when the Dems take over again.

I've never heard a Republican complain about the EC. It's only butt hurt liberals/Democrats who do that.

#122 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-25 08:00 AM | Reply

I'd love to see Boaz's reaction if a Democrat who lost the popular vote by millions of votes managed to become president. His illogical position is one of convenience.

Sadly, it'll never happen as Republicans have only won the nationwide popular vote once in the last seven elections. They probably never will again.

#123 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-25 08:13 AM | Reply

I don't care if a President is elected by California or Wyoming, I expect them to be in service to ALL Americans.

Lets just say you were conservative. You really expect Californians to have your best interests at heart. I know my culture is 180 degrees from how a typical Cali liberal thinks. The only thing California wants to do to the country is tax more and more.

#124 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-25 08:21 AM | Reply

I'd love to see Boaz's reaction if a Democrat who lost the popular vote by millions of votes managed to become president. His illogical position is one of convenience.

Stop assigning positions to me. You dont know me.

I have faith in the Electoral College.

#125 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-25 08:26 AM | Reply

I know you well enough.

Liberals = bad
Conservatives = good

Tht's the extent of your caveman brain.

#126 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-25 08:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You really expect Californians to have your best interests at heart.
#124 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Yes
I also expect Wyomians, and Texans and other Red states to have all America's best interest at heart.
Of course, I am disappointed over and over by folks like you.

#127 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-02-25 08:54 AM | Reply

So, Boaz, you expect when a Californian is fighting for gay marriage, they only care about gays in Cali and not in Wyo?

#128 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-02-25 08:55 AM | Reply

Trumplethinskin is leaving office in disgrace and there is nothing the righty tightys can to to stop it.

#129 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-25 09:06 AM | Reply

We are never going to a popular vote.

The unfairness of Wyoming having disproportionate representation can be solved by merely getting rid of 100 electoral votes. 2 from each state.

Like it was pointed out, it requires changing the constitution. Good luck with that. I support it.

#130 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-25 09:06 AM | Reply

So, Boaz, you expect when a Californian is fighting for gay marriage, they only care about gays in Cali and not in Wyo?

In my opinion, it's none of their business what goes on in another state. Go ahead, fight for it in Cali, whatever.

#131 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-25 09:31 AM | Reply

The unfairness of Wyoming having disproportionate representation can be solved by merely getting rid of 100 electoral votes. 2 from each state.

That's not even accurate. If you reduced Wyoming's by two (giving them only one electoral vote), that would mean they have one for every 579,315 people. If you reduced California's by two they would still only have one for every 746,037 people. Wyoming would still have outsize influence.

All these silly calculations and inherent unfairness could be avoided by giving everybody one vote.

#132 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-25 09:49 AM | Reply

Boaz, so in 1850, you would have supported the South's right to slavery? Good to know.

#133 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-02-25 10:04 AM | Reply

And thanks for pointing out a main difference in the parties, one fights to include, one fights to discriminate.

#134 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-02-25 10:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All these silly calculations and inherent unfairness could be avoided by giving everybody one vote.

#132 | POSTED BY JOE

And if doing so produced a result that wasn't to your liking you'd be pining for the wisdom of the EC.

But, like Ebs said, these kinds of changes would require a Constitutional amendment and far too many states have an incentive to keep things the way they currently are.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-25 11:21 AM | Reply

And if doing so produced a result that wasn't to your liking you'd be pining for the wisdom of the EC.

No i wouldn't.

There's no logic to an EC. None. I've always thought it was stupid regardless of my political beliefs at the time.

#136 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-25 11:29 AM | Reply

As stated above, say we go to a popular vote which would enable a stronger 3rd, 4th, etc party system to develop. A presidential candidate wins with 31% of the vote...would that really be a better system?

#137 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-02-25 11:39 AM | Reply

#137 Then have a runoff election.

#138 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-25 11:43 AM | Reply

Within each State, no. But each State should have proportional say, in a huge country of 300+ Million people, based on their populace.

Guess what, that is how the system was designed and works.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter

That's not what I asked. I asked if YOU thought that one person's vote should count more or less than another person's vote.

#139 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-25 11:54 AM | Reply

But, like Ebs said, these kinds of changes would require a Constitutional amendment and far too many states have an incentive to keep things the way they currently are.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ

Slavery was an unfair system and was difficult to end. Does that mean it wasn't worth ending.

Do you think one citizen should get more power to pick the president than another citizen?

#140 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-25 11:55 AM | Reply

Nixon left in disgrace ... we got end of draft and abortion rights
Bush-hole deux left in disgrace ... we got gay marriage and medical

Trumplethinskin leaves office we get ... hmm what do we want... end of EC, taxing thew rich and increased minimum wage

We always ways get our way in the end so do what you want clowns

#141 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-25 12:18 PM | Reply

"There's no logic to an EC. None."

Yes there is.

#142 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-25 12:28 PM | Reply

Joe, if we stopped bitching about Wyoming, we could have a more realistic solution.

How many states would be over represented if we dropped 2 each?

3? 4?

In theory, I have no problem with a popular vote.

It's just 100% politically unrealistic.

#143 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-25 12:33 PM | Reply

"There's no logic to an EC. None."
Yes there is.

#142 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Of course there was. To convince slave states to join the Union.

These days?

To keep the GOP in power with a fractional minority of support from the people.

#144 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-25 12:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In theory, I have no problem with a popular vote.
It's just 100% politically unrealistic.

#143 | POSTED BY EBERLY

It wouldn't be if we held a popular vote on it.

#145 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-25 12:45 PM | Reply

It's just 100% politically unrealistic.

#143 | Posted by eberly

...is what half the country said about ending slavery.

#146 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-25 01:15 PM | Reply

I'm always shocked when people like Roc and Boaz Pretend that social evils get eliminated in capitalism. The only way our society has progressed is through an activist government.

#147 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-02-25 02:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

..".is what half the country said about ending slavery."

Apples and oranges.

We aren't going to war over this issue. Politicians don't have the spine to take this issue anywhere near that. Nor does anybody else.

#148 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-25 03:22 PM | Reply

We aren't going to war over this issue. Politicians don't have the spine to take this issue anywhere near that. Nor does anybody else.

#148 | Posted by eberly

If repubs keep trying to replace democracy with aristocracy, we will eventually go to war over it.

#149 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-25 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-If repubs keep trying to replace democracy with aristocracy, we will eventually go to war over it.

because a couple of times, the losing candidate won the popular vote?

we aren't going to war over it.

My prediction is the next election the dem wins both the EC and the popular vote.

#150 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-25 06:54 PM | Reply

because a couple of times, the losing candidate won the popular vote?

we aren't going to war over it.

My prediction is the next election the dem wins both the EC and the popular vote.

#150 | Posted by eberly

Because our entire election funding system is legalized bribery so our entire government is filled by people who do the bidding of the rich instead of the voters. That's aristocracy or plutocracy, not democracy.

#151 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-25 07:25 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort