Why aren't they calling him out?

[Athetotheist]

Trump makes myriad ludicrous claims which are demonstrably false. Media pundits self-righteously crow about the falsehood of his statements, but why is that as far as they go?

When he claims that many professors at his old business college praise his economic plan, the media's response should be, "Name them."

When he suggests that English professors call his "Weave" the most brilliant thing they've ever seen, the media's response should be, "Name them."

His supporters are called stupid for accepting his claims without evidence, but if those calling them that would openly challenge him to present evidence when he can't and let his supporters see that he can't, it would be more effective than just stating that his claims are false.

Why aren't those behind the microphone doing so?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #10]

The thing people don't understand is that unless you're in a swing state, your vote is "wasted" anyway.

The beauty is that without an electoral college, there wouldn't be any "swing states"; there would just be the popular vote across the nation.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #10]

The thing people don't understand is that unless you're in a swing state, your vote is "wasted" anyway.

The beauty is that without an electoral college, there wouldn't be any "swing states"; there would just be the popular vote across the nation.

I'm not saying I totally agree with the reasoning (I do partly) but why they have that, is so extremely populous areas don't end up controlling everything and the people in, for example, Dakota, stop mattering.

People in big cities already do this, turning up their noses and holding them. They think only New York and California matter. The rest are flyover states - garbage. What they will do if they get political power over other states by virtue of being sardines is pillage those other states and essentially make slaves of them. One thing I know they will do if they can is tax states with healthy populations to support the inflated pensions of their aging populations. If they have to vote for politicians who will do this, that's not really an obstacle.

[The Barbarian]

You know how that happens? More people vote for other parties. You can help.

The thing people don't understand is that unless you're in a swing state, your vote is "wasted" anyway. Trump is NOT going to win California, ever. So if you think this whole meta-analysis and "wasted" vote garbage is valid and you live in California just vote for whoever you want.

Especially if you like Trump.

The destruction of the uniparty will happen on local and district levels first. And there, majorities matter.

[The Barbarian]

One thing I know they will do if they can is tax states with healthy populations to support the inflated pensions of their aging populations. If they have to vote for politicians who will do this, that's not really an obstacle.

Do some research find the states that have the worst public health, the lowest educational levels, the shortest lifespans, lowest IQs and lowest incomes.

Turns out, these are rather well correlated. Absent the high plains states, it's almost always that way. Oh, and check out which states get more federal money than they send to the federal government.

That's part of the correlation, too. Correlation is not necessarily causation. There's something below all of these things that causes all of it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #12]

I'm not saying I totally agree with the reasoning (I do partly) but why they have that, is so extremely populous areas don't end up controlling everything and the people in, for example, Dakota, stop mattering.

And by giving lower-population states more electoral power than higher-population ones, twelve states decide the election while 38 states lose out----so it's unfair even on a state-by-state basis.

That's why presidents should be elected by voters, not by states.

https://electoralvotemap.com/5-reasons- ... l-college/

[Difflugia]

And by giving lower-population states more electoral power than higher-population ones, twelve states decide the election while 38 states lose out----so it's unfair even on a state-by-state basis.

Your argument's backwards. If we consider fairness to a state to be a thing, the current electoral college system is more fair by virtue of giving less populous states some amount of voice. More than twelve states decide the election, but it doesn't seem like it because many of those 38 states' votes are lopsided enough that there's little chance they'll swing the other way. Just because we already know how they'll vote in the aggregate doesn't mean that their votes are meaningless or that they lose out.

Regardless of how the electoral votes relate to total population, the unfairness of the electoral college is to the minority in any given state. The number of Californians that voted Republican and Texans that voted Democratic, for example, weren't enough to give any electoral support to their respective candidates, even though those minority voters dwarf the populations of most other states.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #16]

Regardless of how the electoral votes relate to total population, the unfairness of the electoral college is to the minority in any given state. The number of Californians that voted Republican and Texans that voted Democratic, for example, weren't enough to give any electoral support to their respective candidates, even though those minority voters dwarf the populations of most other states.

None of that should mean anything in a race between candidates promising to do the best thing for the entire nation. The EC forces states to compete with each other for the best deal, and most voters end up losing.

[Purple Knight]

One thing I know they will do if they can is tax states with healthy populations to support the inflated pensions of their aging populations. If they have to vote for politicians who will do this, that's not really an obstacle.

Do some research find the states that have the worst public health, the lowest educational levels, the shortest lifespans, lowest IQs and lowest incomes.

Turns out, these are rather well correlated. Absent the high plains states, it's almost always that way. Oh, and check out which states get more federal money than they send to the federal government.

That's part of the correlation, too. Correlation is not necessarily causation. There's something below all of these things that causes all of it.

I did the research you suggested and it looks like I'm right. (By "healthy population" I realise I was unclear but I meant states that have babies, as opposed to those who import populations or simply age.) Lower-population states are being lowkey raped to support everyone in denser states being on Medicaid. And I say this as someone who wants universal healthcare.

And by giving lower-population states more electoral power than higher-population ones, twelve states decide the election while 38 states lose out----so it's unfair even on a state-by-state basis.

That's why presidents should be elected by voters, not by states.

I agree it's a problem but what would you do against the tyranny of the majority if the highest-population states just vote for a candidate that will double Federal taxes in the high plains states and funnel it all to New York and California?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #18]

I agree it's a problem but what would you do against the tyranny of the majority if the highest-population states just vote for a candidate that will double Federal taxes in the high plains states and funnel it all to New York and California?

I don't see how a tyranny of the minority doing the reverse is any better.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #18]

I agree it's a problem but what would you do against the tyranny of the majority if the highest-population states just vote for a candidate that will double Federal taxes in the high plains states and funnel it all to New York and California?

I don't see how a tyranny of the minority doing the reverse is any better.

It's not meant to reverse power, just to equalise it.