So if the red states votes actually counted more then it would be an advantage? So there votes already don't count enough?

It's all basically conjecture if you want to start using that as a response, but it still doesn't change the central portion being mostly red.

You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, other than the military?

So guns would only useful for offensive purposes in this case? Why?

Well I didn't think I would have to list every single thing the central portion could do. I guess I'll name a few more things they would use to persuade, like oil, coal, waterways, air travel.

Imagine not being able to fly straight across the country and having to go around the central portion every single time, where as the central portion would mostly only need to fly straight up and down. In terms of everything they can use to their advantage, this also wouldn't happen slowly over time, it would be put in place very quickly so the coasts couldn't simply plan ahead and import more overnight. You also failed to address the raised prices of everything and how that's going to impact the 'wealthier' coastal area's. You also haven't taken into account the water needed to grow that food and who's growing the food. How do you easily and cheaply grow your food if the central portion controls most of the waterways? You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together? They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages. With the prices being so high, and having no other choice because it happens so quickly out of the blue, the central area will be able to afford it as well. Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle? What if those shipments are turned around or just delayed? What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them one way or another. The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again. The border states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security. The possibilities are endless.

The point is the central portion could easily outlast the coastal area's and it wouldn't take long for the coastal people to push their Gov to make a deal and get things back to the way they used to be.

I don't understand what you're thinking here.  

Small population states have an advantage with the electoral college.  

Each electoral vote in Wyoming covers a population of 192,500 people.  

Each electoral vote in California covers a population of 719,272 people.  

What that means is because of the electoral college, 1 vote in Wyoming counts the same as about 4 votes in California.  

>You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, and the military has the rest.

I wasn't talking about specific ownership.  Only pointing out that about 5% of the population owns most of the guns.  The rest of the 95% doesn't own very many guns.  

>So guns would only useful for offense purposes in this case? Why?

What alternative would there be?  Do you think the blue states would invade red states?  

Why would you have to go around the central portion every time?  If you fly from Florida to Alaska, you're going to fly over Canada. You aren't going to fly around Canada.  

Unless you think red states would try to shoot down planes, there's 0 reason to think they wouldn't just fly over.  

And if they were to start shooting down planes, how do you think other countries would respond?  Whose side do you think they'd take?

>You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together?

No i think the whole idea is nonsense, because there are no red vs blue states.  There are purple states.  

But sure, let's say the conservative farmer is evil and is perfectly okay with starving his neighbors to advance his side.  

>They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages.

That doesn't make sense.  It would still cost more to ship food farther distances.

>What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them on way or another

Why couldn't the coast states do the exact same?  

>Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle?

You could literally ask the opposite question.  

> The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again.

Uh what.  

States aren't going to magically turn red due to passing conservative policies.  

>The boarder states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security.

How would this one way wall work? 

Not really.  

Something I would point out is that interests are rarely divided into big states and small states, but urban vs rural.  

The issue with the electoral college as it is, is that it causes rural votes in blue states to not get counted, and it causes urban votes in red states to not get counted.  Having the electoral college gone would lead Republican votes in California and Democratic votes in say Alabama would actually matter.  

That's not exactly what it does.  

Eliminating the electoral college would make Republican votes in California actually matter.  Which could cause more Republicans to vote.  

That's what the electoral college does.  

Republicans in blue states get screwed over, because their vote doesn't matter.

Democrats in red states gets screwed over, because their vote doesn't matter.

How far left or right someone is, has absolutely no bearing on how "calm or gentle" people are.  

Yes, the evil coastal states making every vote the same.  

Tossing the EC would not lead to solely Democratic American leadership.  The electoral college has voted the same as the popular vote nearly every single election.  So no, eliminating the EC would not cause only Democrat American leadership.  

What happened to creating wealth?  

>Are you trying to say that people don't or won't move if they can't live the type of life they want because of how the Gov is being run?

It's unlikely.  Most families are mixed.  

>the coasts are now screwed

More than likely both sides would be fine.

>plus the illegal immigrants aren't wanted there

Several red states have some of the largest undocumented populations.  

>I guess if we just start tossing stuff out and changing things that don't favor us, well then, what's really off the table?

Yes, making every vote equal and making every vote worth something is just unthinkable.  

"Perfectly" = Don't mention every single developed nation on the planet, and only focus on dictatorships and developing countries.

Here's a list of fictional countries from Tolkien's books that all have socialized healthcare:

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
S. Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom

That's every single fictional developed country in the world. Except for one. USA. The richest country in the history of the world, and also the only one where healthcare and financial bankruptcy go hand in hand. Sounds fictional, right?

When people talk about social democracies, they're talking about things like the Scandinavian model. Countries that are still capitalist, but have socialized healthcare and often times tuition free college.
But every time I watch a Fox News segment it's as if they don't understand this, or don't want their viewers to focus on that, so they mention Venezuela instead. A dictatorship and developing nation that were overdependent on their oil with no plan B...

⚠️

Anyway, this is the Democratic presidential nominee topic.
If you're going to talk about this subject then do it in accordance to what the actual discussion is.

The actual discussion, as in what the democratic nominees propose. They're not proposing anything other than the healthcare models found in other developed nations.

Calling it socialism, just to bring up non-developed nations and dictatorships, isn't going to lead to any productive discussion about the topic.

That would still happen in a representative election.  Just to a lesser extent.  

@bold: again, all of this is an inconsistent version of what you think would happen.  The reality is, even if there was a red/blue split up, both countries would be fine.  Either one would be richer than nearly any country on the planet.  

>California housing costs

Are high because the state isn't building enough houses for the people that want or have to live there.  

>you can't seriously believe they are doing this so the Reps have an equal chance at winning, otherwise why would they bother if the pop vote almost always ends up the same as the EC anyway, right?

They're proposing it because it's fair. Every vote is equal to any other vote.  

The reality is, there is no way to know for sure how future elections would play out.  Republicans in blue states like California might be more willing to vote, which could change things.  

There was nothing valid about your image.
None of the democrats are pushing for USA to become a dictatorship or developing nation. And the country models from other democratic/capitalistic nations that they are looking to emulate are not fictional, unlike what your image suggests.

While some have a mix of public and private health insurance, generally private health insurance is pretty much unheard of.

Socialism is an extremely broad term. You could call roads, bridges, libraries, public schools, law enforcement, etc, socialism.
You shouldn't use labels just for the sake of drawing irrelevant disingenuous correlations for the sake of fearmongering. In that case, just stick to the subject.
That Bernie wants private health insurance to be relegated to elective procedures. As it essentially is in the rest of the developed world.

If anything 'looks bad' it's avoiding what the actual conversation is.
I should not have had to point out why you should compare it to other developed democratic/capitalistic nations, in particular the 'Nordic model' that is often cited as an example, rather than Cambodia.

And this isn't an invitation to debate the definition of socialism.
The democrats are looking to emulate healthcare models from other developed democratic/capitalistic nations. Acting like those countries don't exist, just to fearmonger about irrelevant developing/dictatorships is disingenuous, and something we'll leave to certain news outlets. Not in here please.

There really is a difference between marginalized groups and your username, but again: I wouldn't expect someone who would choose the name Machiavellian to represent any good faith arguments. The mere act of conflating a username with nationality, sex, or gender is fairly indicative of that, so thanks for proving my point.

Yeah, just face it you found something to discriminate someone with and you jump right for it.  People who are quick to discriminate others always look for some fallacy they can use to dismiss something.  You have shone a classic pattern of doing just that.  I am sure you walk down the street judging people without ever saying a word to them.  You make the perfect hero for Trump and would fit quite nicely within his administration.  You should look for a job, I am sure he is hiring with so many positions open. 

Also, you should know just in case you forgot it was you who brought up the whole username laughing point in the first place.  I like how you bring something as stupid as a username into a discussion then try to get all high and mighty when its thrown back in your face as the reflection of your own prejudice rises with each post.