Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, Dec 11, 2022.

  1. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    Who believes that? Certainly not the guy you've been debating with. You're just making stuff up.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,785
    827
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Last post for me on this thread regarding this poster.

    I didn't believe it either. But here it is:

    I said:

    gatorempire said:

    Glad to see someone appears to agree with me.:D
     
  3. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    You are literally lying. Gatorempire did not respond to your post with that. You are taking something he said in a different post and saying that was his response to: "If the only states that were swing states were small states, I guess no state would receive any attention in presidential elections."

    Why would you do that?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,785
    827
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Read the thread.

    All you have to do is read post 228 to 232. It's not hard.

    Read those 5 posts then tell me I'm lying.
     
  5. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    Ok, I read through those and I now see where he responded that way, so apologies for me saying you were lying. But your logic throughout has been so tortured it's hard to figure out what you are trying to say. You created a hypothetical scenario where the only swing states are small states. If that were the case, candidates would spend most of their time in those small swing states. I don't think that is inconsistent with his point, which is that the candidates spend the most time in the largest swing states. In your scenario, the largest swing states are small states. In the real world, out of the 10 most populated states, 4 of them are swing states. And the candidates spend an inordinate amount of time in those states.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. archigator_96

    archigator_96 GC Hall of Fame

    3,648
    3,524
    1,923
    Apr 8, 2020
    Don't some states divide up their electoral votes instead of winner take all? What is the main problem with that? A state that has 3 million voters and say 3 EV's. If one candidate gets a million votes and the other gets two, then they would get 1 EV and the other guy 2.
    That would solve the republican issue in California and the democrat issue in Montana or where ever.
    Part of the issue here is that the country is split 50/50 on most things except that the democrat 50% lives primarily on the west coast and the NE. The republican 50 is in the middle and spread out. And then there is some purple sprinkled in here and there and that is where the candidates spend most of their time (Penn., Mich, Wisc., Ohio and recently Ga.)
     
  7. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    15,453
    1,970
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    They only divide them up into smaller winner-take-all-bundles (this is Maine and Nebraska). They have 2 votes for the winner of the state and then one vote for the winner of each Congressional District (which they get to gerrymander, of course). Nobody hands out the votes proportionally.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1