• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Charlie Daniels: It's only a matter of time before there is blood on the streets

bobknightfan said:
Biggus Deacus said:
Using the popular vote to determine a national election when you have one 13% subset of the election rubber-stamping one party's candidate by a 95% to 5% margin in every election would amount to "tyranny of the minority". Take a look at the numbers. A 13% subset of voters voting 95% to 5% works out to a margin of 12.35% to 0.65%. That means that only 1/8 of the total voters have arbitrarily given one candidate a 11.7% margin out of the total 100% vote in the country. In order to offset this enormous rubber-stamp margin, the other 87%...roughly 7/8 of the country...would have to vote for the other candidate by more than a 62.35% to 37.65% margin to prevent having 1/8 of the voters in the country electing every president in every election. And that is tyranny of the minority....when there is a good chance that 1/8 of the voters can overrule the wishes of 7/8 of the voters. That is also why Hillary's popular vote margin doesn't mean jack-shit. She was a landslide winner from 1/8 of the population and a solid loser from 7/8 of the population.

Changing to a popular vote to elect a president would 1) be completely opposite of the way our government was set up and has successfully operated for more than 200 years and 2) would create a far, far worse racial division in this country than anything you think you have seen to date as white voter habits would gradually tend to morph more toward black voters habits as they realized that they were being disenfranchised by a much, much smaller segment of the population.

In short, it would be a total disaster.....and those who are calling for that to happen are extremely uninformed and short-sighted.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. What's the 13% subset that you're referring to? Because California was 61-32, not 95-5.

If you're just speaking in generalities, you're missing the point that there would likely be a 13% (or whatever) block on the other side doing rubber stamping as well, so they would cancel each other out.
Click to expand...
 
MysteryMen said:
bobknightfan said:
I'm confused. What's the 13% subset that you're referring to? Because California was 61-32, not 95-5.

If you're just speaking in generalities, you're missing the point that there would likely be a 13% (or whatever) block on the other side doing rubber stamping as well, so they would cancel each other out.
Click to expand...

he's talking about black people. but he doesn't think black people don't think for themselves.
Click to expand...
 
Just let Bob vote for the black people in America. He knows what in their best interest. After all, college educated blacks just aren't as smart and don't understand as much about what's good for them as college educated white people. Black millionaires are too stupid what's best for them, but Bob knows.

It has nothing to do with Republicans voting in over two dozen states to suppress the right to vote for blacks, or opposing the Voters Rights Act. It's not Republicans opposing Pell Grants or wanting to kill the Department of Education federally and in states. It's not about the fact that Republicans want to kill Affirmative Action but don't want to do anything to curtail legacies getting into schools or getting jobs. Blacks should thanks Republicans for voting against equal pay for equal work.

I mean really what kind of American wants to vote? Or go to college? Or be paid equally for equal work? Blacks should be happy with whatever scraps white Republicans want to leave for them and thank them by voting the Republicans who have acted this way. Who wouldn't agree to do that?
 
RJKarl said:
Just let Bob vote for the black people in America. He knows what in their best interest. After all, college educated blacks just aren't as smart and don't understand as much about what's good for them as college educated white people. Black millionaires are too stupid what's best for them, but Bob knows.

It has nothing to do with Republicans voting in over two dozen states to suppress the right to vote for blacks, or opposing the Voters Rights Act. It's not Republicans opposing Pell Grants or wanting to kill the Department of Education federally and in states. It's not about the fact that Republicans want to kill Affirmative Action but don't want to do anything to curtail legacies getting into schools or getting jobs. Blacks should thanks Republicans for voting against equal pay for equal work.

I mean really what kind of American wants to vote? Or go to college? Or be paid equally for equal work? Blacks should be happy with whatever scraps white Republicans want to leave for them and thank them by voting the Republicans who have acted this way. Who wouldn't agree to do that?
Click to expand...

Tell the Gil McGregor story.
 
bobknightfan said:
Biggus Deacus said:
...Changing to a popular vote to elect a president would 1) be completely opposite of the way our government was set up and has successfully operated for more than 200 years and 2) would create a far, far worse racial division in this country than anything you think you have seen to date as white voter habits would gradually tend to morph more toward black voters habits as they realized that they were being disenfranchised by a much, much smaller segment of the population.

In short, it would be a total disaster.....and those who are calling for that to happen are extremely uninformed and short-sighted.
Click to expand...

We could write a book about this, there's a lot more than 2. Stratified classes breaking down and the lower end quashed by a failed revolt. World markets in peril, dogs and cats living mass hysteria!
Click to expand...
 
If the black vote represents "tyranny of the minority", then black folks suck at tyranny.
 
MysteryMen said:
I love the conservative move of just dismissing the parts of American where people, you know, live. The whole "if you take out California" line is so dumb. You could just as easily make the argument on the other side: if you take out Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina (combined population: less than California), what would Hillary's margin have been?
Click to expand...

Including or excluding the millions of illegal immigrants who voted?
 
bkf is one cocktail away from posting his true feeling that black people's votes shouldn't be counted. I can't wait.
 
The devil went down to Randleman
He was looking for a soul to steal

But instead he walked out with an annuity and a Carolina sweatshirt from some guy muttering about 95% voting blocs.
 
Yes, too bad none of the 17 candidates who ran represented the views of the Republicsn party.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Funny how desperate the right wing is to delegitimize the popular vote result when their candidate suddenly wins an election with 3 million less votes than their opponent.

If anybody thinks this would have been allowed to be a common occurance in the history of the country without political system change is kidding themselves.
Click to expand...

How can an old man who hasn't lost all his brain cells allow himself to be this stupid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top