|
Seviro, you seem not to understand that states do not matter in a popular vote system.
I hope you realize that states are uniformly republican or democrat. There are regions in both California and Texas that have a high republican/democrat majority. And because in a popular vote system where there is no electoral college it won't matter what state they are in.
A popular vote, where each person has one vote, is more fair than having randomly generated states such as Iowa and Vermont hold disproportional more power. |
|
|
"Government being decided by two high-population states is not an improvement."
There.Is.No.Such.Thing.As.States in Popular vote, get that through your skull.
Take Texas for an example, a hall mark republican state. In the electoral system Democrats are unfairly suppressed and their vote matters nearly nothing in the electoral system. In a popular vote Democrats in Texas from Dallas and Austin would actually have a chance to make a difference. |
|
flybombJoin Date: 2010-05-14
Post Count: 3659 |
Froast, then there would be no point in having a senate. Some votes are not equal, you're right. Nothing's going to be perfect. But this is the closest system that we have to it. Removing the electoral college would allow the extremely populated cities in charge of everyone else, when frankly, not everyone agrees with their socialist views. |
|
SLPMJoin Date: 2010-04-02
Post Count: 33349 |
Doesn't even really matter what seems "best" in a situation like this. The reason it isn't based on popular vote is simply because we are a federation of multiple states that each have their own governments under a federal government. Each state is given equal representation in the federal government to provide fairness across the country. Giving 1 state more power than other states results in a Hunger Games scenario. We don't want the Hunger Games. That would be bad. Obviously I'm making a point and a joke at the same time, but what I am saying is true. If you go by popular vote then only cities will be represented properly. All the other states full of other people will be ignored and likely break away as a result. Maybe even causing another civil war.
|
|
|
You can call cities socialist all you want but the fact of the matter is urbanized, populated, liberal cities contribute more to this economy in terms of GDP, innovation, and employment than you welfare queens in the rural states.
Its grossly unfair that a handful of lightly populated states get to negate the votes of millions in places such as texas and California. |
|
flybombJoin Date: 2010-05-14
Post Count: 3659 |
Kevin, you literally just argued our point in the Texas example. If you're in the minority of course you're going to want this system. It's the only thing that can express what you believe in. Both sides should want this equally because at one point in time YOURE GOING TO BE IN THE MINORITY |
|
|
The Electoral system IS NOT EQUALITY. You are literally giving 3 electoral votes stolen from the bigger states to smaller states such as Iowa and Vermont. When you have the minority ruling thats the definition of an oligarchy. ################################################################################################################ |
|
SLPMJoin Date: 2010-04-02
Post Count: 33349 |
I'm not sure where you get your numbers but the highest GDP per capita as of 2015 from statistics provided by The United States Bureau of Economic Analysis place District of Columbia at the very top for most GDP per capita. Following it is Delaware, Alaska, North Dakota, Connecticut, and Wyoming. New York is 7th on the list. California is 17th.
|
|
flybombJoin Date: 2010-05-14
Post Count: 3659 |
Welfare queens? Our rural taxes are going to all of your lazi, jobless, and poverty stricken families with #### problems. |
|
SLPMJoin Date: 2010-04-02
Post Count: 33349 |
And according to the Tax Foundation New York has one of the higher percentages of welfare in comparison to other states.
|
|
flybombJoin Date: 2010-05-14
Post Count: 3659 |
LOL SLPM YOU JUST DISMANTLED THEM FROM THE INSIDE |
|
InfusiveJoin Date: 2011-08-19
Post Count: 651 |
yet red southern states occupy most of the top spots for most welfare recipients |
|
SLPMJoin Date: 2010-04-02
Post Count: 33349 |
The state that receives the least welfare is Alaska. They provide 3rd most GDP per capita if you include the District of Columbia. Perhaps Alaska should lead the country since they clearly are helping it. Who did Alaska vote for again? Donald J. Trump I believe.
|
|
|
InfusiveJoin Date: 2011-08-19
Post Count: 651 |
not really sure you understand how to interpret the term "per capita" |
|
SLPMJoin Date: 2010-04-02
Post Count: 33349 |
GDP per capita is for measuring a country or state's performance when comparing it to another.
|
|
|
According to IJR (Independent Journal Review)from the Tax Foundation which one of you guys alluded to, the highest federal aid recipients are Mississippi (45%), Louisiana (44%), Tennessee (41%), South Dakota (40%), Missouri (39%), Montana (39%), and Georgia (37%)
Oh wait all those are states that predominately vote republican.
According to the wiki page on 'List of states by Gross state product' it lists off as
1. California 2.4 trillion
2. Texas 1.6 trillion
3. New York 1.4 trillion
4. Florida 0.9 trillion
5. Illinois 0.7 trillion
6. Pennsylvania 0.6 trillion
7. Ohio 0.6 trillion
8. New Jersey 0.5 trillion <--- Has a population of around 9 million, not small
9. North Carolina 0.5 trillion
10. Georgia 0.5 trillion
11. Virginia 0.5 trillion
12. Massachusetts 0.4 trillion <--- Has a population of around 7 million, not small
13. Michigan 0.4 trillion
14. Washington 0.4 trillion
15. Maryland 0.3 trillion <--- Population of 6 million
Where as states such as Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, and others have a population of less than million
|
|
|
"GDP per capita is for measuring a country or state's performance when comparing it to another." No. GDP per capita is the Gross Domestic Product of one country, divided by the countries population. And considering that the US has one of the largest economic inequality gaps it doesn't help you. GDP Party Purchasing Power ##### ## used to measuring the cost of one countries goods/wealth compared to another. |
|
SLPMJoin Date: 2010-04-02
Post Count: 33349 |
"No. GDP per capita is the Gross Domestic Product of one country, divided by the countries population. "
Can't really say no when what I said is literally the use of "GDP per capita".
|
|
InfusiveJoin Date: 2011-08-19
Post Count: 651 |
no the term "per capita" means per population, mathematically being the value being measured(GDP in this case) divided by the population in the given area. it is simply a statistic, not an argument in and of itself.
lets say your neighbors have 12 kids, and their income is 200,000 dollars per year. you have no kids, and your income is 25,000 dollars per year. the income per capita of your household is 25,000 dollars per year, and your neighbors is roughly 16.5 thousand per year(200,000 / 12). despite your neighbors making way more money than you do, the statistic can technically say that your household makes more than theirs. its not true, but you can pull the statistic to try to argue that. now if you were using it to compare the contribution of all members of both households, you might be able to use gdp per capita. |
|
SLPMJoin Date: 2010-04-02
Post Count: 33349 |
I love how you're all saying no as if I said what it is when I was clearly saying what it is used for. Yes, I know what it is, but you two clearly don't understand its use.
|
|
SLPMJoin Date: 2010-04-02
Post Count: 33349 |
Essentially GDP per capita means efficiency while gross product means how much is actually produced. Considering what we're talking about here is use to the country the GPD per capita is more important to consider. Meaning states with higher GDP per capita are performing better.
|
|
InfusiveJoin Date: 2011-08-19
Post Count: 651 |
if thats your argument, a country like Qatar is doing great with its $120,000 gdp per capita while most of its population lives in poverty |
|
SLPMJoin Date: 2010-04-02
Post Count: 33349 |
I'd say it is performing great. I wouldn't say the country itself is great.
|
|
InfusiveJoin Date: 2011-08-19
Post Count: 651 |
if a country's population is massively in poverty i wouldnt call that great performance. |
|