the electoral college a middle ground

[JustOneWay]

I have no issue with someone reading them the test.

It is like when my sister had third graders who could not read, yet they understood the material being taught if it was read to them, so to be fair unless it was a reading test which neither of the suggested tests would be she would read to those few students to actually get an ACTUATE picture of what they were learning. .

It would make more sense to teach the children how to read first, and not read them questions. Reading is fundamental. Children need to learn to read.

 

[Desk trauma]

Honest question how would that be gerrymandering if the populations were roughly equal

Voting districts can be gerrymandered. If EC votes are tired to them then they are subject to being gerrymandered rather then being a state wide vote.

( particularly if the maps were drawn up fairly ?

LOL

 

[dogs4thewin]

Who are these mythical impartial people you would give a say over my right to vote?

If it was the case that say you had 100 people making the tests and some were moderate republicans some moderate democrats some right republicans some left democrats some independents ECT well all of those people are not going to agree so how could you say that they would make the test in favor of a particular party/group if the people who made the test came from different parts of the political spectrum.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Again, the lifestyles tend to be different ( otherwise in today's day and time people would move. There are things that "fly" in the cities that good luck getting them to "fly" out here with the different way of life.

What’s so special about your lifestyle that you should have more voting power than I should?

 

[Desk trauma]

If it was the case that say you had 100 people making the tests and some were moderate republicans some moderate democrats some right republicans some left democrats some independents ECT well all of those people are not going to agree so how could you say that they would make the test in favor of a particular party/group if the people who made the test came from different parts of the political spectrum.

Because the people in power after winning the right to test and exclude voters are going to be fair about it rather than tip it in their favor, LOL!

 

[dogs4thewin]

It would make more sense to teach the children how to read first, and not read them questions. Reading is fundamental. Children need to learn to read.

Yes, the problem was that the children did not learn to read in the lower grades k- first or second and they were not held back, so there was no way S would have time to both devote to teaching them to read AND teach all of the third grade standards. Since there was nothing she could do about the fact that teachers in the earlier grades/the students' parents did not have them repeat a grade like that probably should have she had to work with them in the state they came to her in or not teach third grade standards. '

 

[Arcangl86]

Wait ,I am confused it is my understanding ( and I could be wrong but it is my understanding that they (the government purposely try to make the districts fairly equal in terms of population. In other words, it has been my understanding that if there are say a million people in a state ( for round numbers sake and say 10 districts ( I know those numbers are different than real numbers, but just for the sake of having round numbers to work with in that case the districts would try to be arranged so that ( roughly) 100k people would live in each district .

So yes, with in a state the districts are mostly around the same size. Where things get complicated in the allocation of number of seats to each state. The House has been capped at 435 for around 100 years, and that combined with the method we use to appoint seats results in pretty big disparity between states. For instance, the national average is around 760K people per district. But in Delaware it works out to be around 990k and only about 542k in Montana.

Cites are different than in the country the lifestyle is different and we would not want the cities pushing to control rural areas.

Why? What makes the country lifestyle more desirable than the urban one?

An example of this idea is that there are people in rural areas who have literally voted down businesses coming in and loser zoning restrictions because we ( I happen to live in a rural area) like it this way ( although we are not stupid that does come with drawbacks.

And that's fine on a local basis, but I'm not sure what that has to do with national politics.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Therefore low population states and areas should be over represented in a national/state vote? Going to have to walk me thought that one.

over represented? There are two houses of congress (that make the laws for the president to sign for a reason) One based on a flat rate and one based on population.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What’s so special about your lifestyle that you should have more voting power than I should?

more voting power? It would seem to me that the current system allows even less voting power to certain people as really votes in only a handful of states really end up counting.

 

[Desk trauma]

over represented?

Yes, over represented.

There are two houses of congress (that make the laws for the president to sign for a reason) One based on a flat rate and one based on population.

Great, so we can then all have an equal say in electing a president?

 

[dogs4thewin]

So yes, with in a state the districts are mostly around the same size. Where things get complicated in the allocation of number of seats to each state. The House has been capped at 435 for around 100 years, and that combined with the method we use to appoint seats results in pretty big disparity between states. For instance, the national average is around 760K people per district. But in Delaware it works out to be around 990k and only about 542k in Montana.

Why? What makes the country lifestyle more desirable than the urban one?

And that's fine on a local basis, but I'm not sure what that has to do with national politics.

Some people like the open area like getting to know people and be a name not a number. Some people enjoy being outdoors and having fewer people around. Meanwhile other people like city life and having everything close by and having public transit and the like,

 

[Desk trauma]

Some people like the open area like getting to know people and be a name not a number. Some people enjoy being outdoors and having fewer people around. Meanwhile other people like city life and having everything close by and having public transit and the like,

Therefore low population areas should get more weight added to their votes?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because the people in power after winning the right to test and exclude voters are going to be fair about it rather than tip it in their favor, LOL!

if the people that made the test came from all along the political spectrum how would that be possible?

 

[Arcangl86]

Some people like the open area like getting to know people and be a name not a number. Some people enjoy being outdoors and having fewer people around. Meanwhile other people like city life and having everything close by and having public transit and the like,

Ok, no arguments there. What I'm not getting is why that means that those who prefer one lifestyle over the other should have more voting power.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Therefore low population areas should get more weight added to their votes?

why should the country be overrun by the city just because more people live there?

 

[Desk trauma]

if the people that made the test came from all along the political spectrum how would that be possible?

What makes you think they would be the ones making the test? If a state government fought for and won the power to exclude people from voting based on a test those in power are going to be in charge of making the test so it's going to favor them and lean towards excluding those who do not vote for them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What makes you think they would be the ones making the test? If a state government fought for and won the power to exclude people from voting based on a test those in power are going to be in charge of making the test so it's going to favor them and lean towards excluding those who do not vote for them.

OH so you are saying that those in power would not make it so that there would be a mix of people coming up with the test?

 

[Desk trauma]

why should the country be overrun by the city just because more people live there?

You're asking me why the person or proposal that wins the most votes should win the election?

 

[Desk trauma]

OH so you are saying that those in power would not make it so that there would be a mix of people coming up with the test?

Yes, have said it more than once.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You're asking me why the person or proposal that wins the most votes should win the election?

I guess you could say that since different areas rural vs urban have different interests. Why should people in the city control the lifestyle of people in the country?