Upload
Login or register

frenzysalem

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:1/23/2011
Last Login:12/08/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#7461
Highest Content Rank:#5531
Highest Comment Rank:#2025
Content Thumbs: 30 total,  47 ,  17
Comment Thumbs: 4256 total,  5498 ,  1242
Content Level Progress: 50.84% (30/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 54% (54/100)
Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 239 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1
Content Views:3730
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:1334
FJ Points:4053

latest user's comments

#37 - How exactly does this all work as far as in-game actions? Is i…  [+] (2 replies) 12/02/2016 on Funnyjunk Hunger Games: Day 6 0
User avatar
#40 - frenzysalem (12/02/2016) [-]
Oh cool. Thanks, m'love. Keep up the good work.
#360 - Is it really any different the way things are now? We have a *…  [+] (1 reply) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#595 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
It's only different in that it makes politicians appeal to a broader audience. Dems appeal to Cali/NY and Reps appeal to Texas, and then they both try to appeal to middle America (the swing states) in their own way. The alternative(popular vote) would just be both of them appealing to NY, Cali, Florida, and Texas and ignoring the rest.
#334 - Not necessarily. Look at the popular vote polls in the last se…  [+] (5 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#344 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
You're failing to take into consideration politics. Why would a presidential candidate go to Ohio and bother caring about their opinions for maybe a million or so votes after a handful of speeches in various parts of the state with travel and all that, when they could just cater to New York and guarantee a million votes in a single speech? If you go by popular vote, the politicians will not WASTE their time catering to all the various parts of middle America, they'll just go to the coasts.
User avatar
#394 - yusay (11/26/2016) [-]
We already have that problem though, politicians only care about the swing states with the electoral college. You might want to watch this video. The Trouble with the Electoral College
User avatar
#375 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Either way, you've helped me understand some of the thinking behind it and in a rational, level-headed way which is something I don't get often on FJ. I really want to feel like the electoral college is what's best for our country and the fact that we've been using it for so long and I trust the system will do what's best for us (to a certain degree) that tells me there's just some aspect of it that I either haven't thought of or been told about yet that proves it. It's just that everything about it that I know makes it seem otherwise. Guess I should've payed more attention in govt. class. Thanks for the help m8
User avatar
#360 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Is it really any different the way things are now? We have a shit ton of states that are either obviously going to be blue or obviously going to be red and then there are swing states. Elects generally spend most of their time campaigning in those swing states because those are the only ones that matter because the electoral college works like that. It says, hey, instead of focusing on what a SHIT TON of people want, we'll give more value to the votes of far less people. And to be fair, if it was popular vote and candidates only focus on high population areas, they could actually spend time trying to get other people's votes from elsewhere since that would actually make a difference. Because, like I said, right now it's just fighting over swing states and pretty much nothing else.
User avatar
#595 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
It's only different in that it makes politicians appeal to a broader audience. Dems appeal to Cali/NY and Reps appeal to Texas, and then they both try to appeal to middle America (the swing states) in their own way. The alternative(popular vote) would just be both of them appealing to NY, Cali, Florida, and Texas and ignoring the rest.
#322 - But if we got rid of the electoral college then it wouldn't di…  [+] (7 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#329 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
...But then highly concentrated areas where people all have the same interests would be catered to, while the rest of America would be ignored. You're exacerbating the problem, not fixing it.
User avatar
#334 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Not necessarily. Look at the popular vote polls in the last several elections. They're generally pretty close, because, sure, even though there are densely packed blue areas, every other area in the country that isn't as densely packed, is red, and they still make up a massive portion of the population.
User avatar
#344 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
You're failing to take into consideration politics. Why would a presidential candidate go to Ohio and bother caring about their opinions for maybe a million or so votes after a handful of speeches in various parts of the state with travel and all that, when they could just cater to New York and guarantee a million votes in a single speech? If you go by popular vote, the politicians will not WASTE their time catering to all the various parts of middle America, they'll just go to the coasts.
User avatar
#394 - yusay (11/26/2016) [-]
We already have that problem though, politicians only care about the swing states with the electoral college. You might want to watch this video. The Trouble with the Electoral College
User avatar
#375 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Either way, you've helped me understand some of the thinking behind it and in a rational, level-headed way which is something I don't get often on FJ. I really want to feel like the electoral college is what's best for our country and the fact that we've been using it for so long and I trust the system will do what's best for us (to a certain degree) that tells me there's just some aspect of it that I either haven't thought of or been told about yet that proves it. It's just that everything about it that I know makes it seem otherwise. Guess I should've payed more attention in govt. class. Thanks for the help m8
User avatar
#360 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Is it really any different the way things are now? We have a shit ton of states that are either obviously going to be blue or obviously going to be red and then there are swing states. Elects generally spend most of their time campaigning in those swing states because those are the only ones that matter because the electoral college works like that. It says, hey, instead of focusing on what a SHIT TON of people want, we'll give more value to the votes of far less people. And to be fair, if it was popular vote and candidates only focus on high population areas, they could actually spend time trying to get other people's votes from elsewhere since that would actually make a difference. Because, like I said, right now it's just fighting over swing states and pretty much nothing else.
User avatar
#595 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
It's only different in that it makes politicians appeal to a broader audience. Dems appeal to Cali/NY and Reps appeal to Texas, and then they both try to appeal to middle America (the swing states) in their own way. The alternative(popular vote) would just be both of them appealing to NY, Cali, Florida, and Texas and ignoring the rest.
#312 - But that's missing the point. If we went by popular vote, the …  [+] (3 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
#315 - shadowbndg (11/26/2016) [-]
10 states hold the majority of the USA population. I promise the people in those 10 states preferable treatment over the people in the other 40. I win the election based on the population in these 10. I keep doing this. My successor does this, so does theirs and so forth.

The people in the other 40 states have no votes that matter. Why would the continue to want to be part of the country?
User avatar
#350 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
And that's different from how it is now...how?
User avatar
#318 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
You misunderstand me. Individual states' population would have nothing to do with the election. It would have to do with simply how many people vote for what. Think about the analogy I made in the original comment. If two corners vote dem. and two corners vote repub. the other 1-person squares would have to break the tie. It has nothing to do with where those people are, but what each individual person votes on. Like, if a few thousand people in one of the squares chooses to vote against what the other thousand want, their vote is heard and it's not muffled by "fuck you, the majority of people in this square wanted it the other way" which is what it's like now.