Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
NIKV69
Posts: 13548
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Fri Sep 11, 2020 3:52 pm

Kiwirob wrote:

So you're ok with the disenfranchisement of the majority of the country so the minority gets to effectively control the outcome of each presidential election?


Your statement is totally false. Under your system CA and NY would be the only that would have a say in who becomes president. The EC makes sure the RI and other small states have a say. Even if it doesn't jive with the media and who they want in office.
I am the Googlizer!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:20 pm

The EC doesn’t disenfranchise anyone, their votes are counted by state, not nationally.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:37 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

So you're ok with the disenfranchisement of the majority of the country so the minority gets to effectively control the outcome of each presidential election?


Your statement is totally false. Under your system CA and NY would be the only that would have a say in who becomes president. The EC makes sure the RI and other small states have a say. Even if it doesn't jive with the media and who they want in office.

I am not sure this is true. I hear it all the time (and by the way I do support the EC process in voting) but it is really true? Wouldn't a true direct voting process give a voice to the millions of voters in California who currently as said to not have a vote due to the state leaning one particular direction? It would do the same for all states, all voters in each state would get the ability for their votes to be heard so to speak.

So why is your statement, that standard claim (which I have used in the past but now don't) accurate?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13024
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:27 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

So you're ok with the disenfranchisement of the majority of the country so the minority gets to effectively control the outcome of each presidential election?


Your statement is totally false. Under your system CA and NY would be the only that would have a say in who becomes president. The EC makes sure the RI and other small states have a say. Even if it doesn't jive with the media and who they want in office.


You can’t actually be serious? With one person one vote or if you keep the EC making it proportional every single person in the US’s vote would count, which it doesn’t at the moment, the tail is wagging the dog.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13024
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:30 pm

Tugger wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

So you're ok with the disenfranchisement of the majority of the country so the minority gets to effectively control the outcome of each presidential election?


Your statement is totally false. Under your system CA and NY would be the only that would have a say in who becomes president. The EC makes sure the RI and other small states have a say. Even if it doesn't jive with the media and who they want in office.

I am not sure this is true. I hear it all the time (and by the way I do support the EC process in voting) but it is really true? Wouldn't a true direct voting process give a voice to the millions of voters in California who currently as said to not have a vote due to the state leaning one particular direction? It would do the same for all states, all voters in each state would get the ability for their votes to be heard so to speak.

So why is your statement, that standard claim (which I have used in the past but now don't) accurate?

Tugg


I bet if you went to one person one vote the number of Americans who vote would drastically increase, they would see that their vote counts. As you say millions of republicans in California would now have a reason to vote.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:49 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The EC doesn’t disenfranchise anyone, their votes are counted by state, not nationally.

Republicans in CA and Democrats in OK would disagree with you. Being overwhelmed by their political opposites, there's essentially no reason for them to vote. Their vote is essentially worthless. The Democrats in OK didn't add anything to Clinton, other than add to her tally for the popular vote. But in the EC, because it's WTA, they get shut off.

Heck, even in swing states one side gets completely shut off. In PA, that 47-48 result meant that the 48% that voted for Trump spoke for the entire state, even though that means that 52% of voters didn't want Trump. In FL's 2000 election, 536 votes swung the state to Bush...what does that say about the votes that went to Gore? Where is their say in the EC?

Your statement makes sense for statewide office. For POTUS, every voting citizen is voting for the same position; doesn't it make sense to make each vote count rather than segregate it by states?
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:04 pm

Nope, what you’re saying s every vote for the loser is a wasted or no-count vote. There’s plenty of
Democrats in OK, they just don’t vote the way leftist Dems prefer. Remember, it was a Democratic state until recently, as was West Virginia. The National Democratic Party has abandoned the working class.
 
apodino
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:58 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Nope, what you’re saying s every vote for the loser is a wasted or no-count vote. There’s plenty of
Democrats in OK, they just don’t vote the way leftist Dems prefer. Remember, it was a Democratic state until recently, as was West Virginia. The National Democratic Party has abandoned the working class.

When I first started following politics back in the Clinton Administration, West Virginia was the bluest state on the map. Now it is one of the reddest.

I was just thinking about the math on this. In order to ratify a constitutional amendment you need 38 states, and here is the math on some states.

States with one Congressional District

Alaska
Montana
Wyoming
North Dakota
South Dakota
Delaware
Vermont

States with Two Congressional Districts

Rhode Island
Maine
Hawaii
Idaho
New Hampshire

Aside from the states in the Acela Corridor and Hawaii on this list, none of those states are ever going to vote to ratify such an amendment. So that would be 7 no votes. Other states that will never ratify IMO include Utah, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Right there is 14 states, enough to kill this debate once and for all. Not to mention, good luck getting 2/3 of the senate to go along, unless they want to propose it at a convention of the states (which is actually something proposed by populists on the right)
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:02 am

I started on the Goldwater campaign, at my parents knee.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:08 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Nope, what you’re saying s every vote for the loser is a wasted or no-count vote.

And so are the votes for the winner. Using OK as an example, in 2016, Trump wasted over 500,000 votes because of how lopsided the election was there. Turnout was 49%. How many Oklahomans stayed home because their vote wouldn't make a difference (for or against Trump)?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
There’s plenty of
Democrats in OK, they just don’t vote the way leftist Dems prefer.
Irrelevant. They may be conservative Democrats who vote Republican, but again, besides putting Trump significantly over the finish line, what else do they stand to gain when their vote remains wasted? If the national popular vote is irrelevant, then in the last election, all it took was 420,376 conservative voters to put Trump over Clinton. Just like the argument that Clinton's vote margin came from CA because she got more votes than Trump there, the same thing happened in OK...and AL...and MS...and WV and WY.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Remember, it was a Democratic state until recently, as was West Virginia.

At the presidential level (which is where this conversation is going), OK began supporting Republicans in 1952 when Eisenhower captured it. Except for Johnson's 1964 victory, the state remains firmly in the GOP column. The GOP wave of 1994 turned its federal delegation red and slowly but surely it turned red at the state level (just like all other southern states). WV, however, lagged the South by decades. It began supporting the GOP presidential ticket in 2000. It's federal delegation wouldn't turn almost completely red until 2014 (Manchin is the only Democrat left), which is the same time its legislature fully flipped. So, no...OK was already pretty red when 2000 rolled around.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The National Democratic Party has abandoned the working class.
AH yes. The Democrats have all abandoned the working class. The tax cuts passed in 2017 clearly supported the working class (you know, because the working class has yachts that they can deduct from their taxes and they're so invested in the stock market that they needed capital gains tax cuts too). The proposed ACA bill that the GOP put up at the last minute and was killed by McCain was VERY helpful (Democrats could never come up with something like that). The Democrats failed the working class: instead of crafting an affordable healthcare bill, they should have told people to drop dead; instead of working to rein in corporations, they should have told them it's open season against the consumers; instead of increasing the minimum wage, they should tell workers to be grateful they make $7.25/hr and that the rate will go lower if they can.

Yes...Democrats have truly abandoned the working class. Meanwhile, Trump and Republican have brought so many factories, that old ones are still closing down (probably making space for them), tariffs have required bailouts for farmers (sorry, not bailouts...that's socialism), and beautiful, clean coal is surging (just in the number of miners and coal mines being closed).
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:21 am

apodino wrote:
I was just thinking about the math on this. In order to ratify a constitutional amendment you need 38 states, and here is the math on some states.

States with one Congressional District

Alaska
Montana
Wyoming
North Dakota
South Dakota
Delaware
Vermont

States with Two Congressional Districts

Rhode Island
Maine
Hawaii
Idaho
New Hampshire

Aside from the states in the Acela Corridor and Hawaii on this list, none of those states are ever going to vote to ratify such an amendment. So that would be 7 no votes. Other states that will never ratify IMO include Utah, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Right there is 14 states, enough to kill this debate once and for all. Not to mention, good luck getting 2/3 of the senate to go along, unless they want to propose it at a convention of the states (which is actually something proposed by populists on the right)

It's funny because out of all these states, only NH and ME receive ANY visit. All others are safely nestled in their party's column and don't get a visit. If anything, it's in these states' interest to help pass an amendment to abolish the EC. The whole idea that an election will be decided only between CA, NY, and IL is preposterous. The total sum of their populations is around 70M (and not all its residents can vote, will vote, or vote the same way in all 3 states...you do know there are Republicans in these states, right?).

The other states you mentioned also would benefit from abolishing the EC (but won't because it's the only way the party they usually support can eke out a win). From that list, the only states anyone visited were MO (2), NE (2), UT (1), and MS (1). Per this source, OH, PA, NC, and FL received the bulk of the campaign stops. Add VA and MI, and that's 2/3 of all campaign events.

But sure, the EC definitely protects small states...enough so that no one seeks out their votes.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2164
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:52 pm

stl07 wrote:
I have changed my view to kill. It violates one person one vote. Also it was a lot more useful when the fed didn't have as much power and work more like the EU. Obama significantly increased the feds power, and Trump has made individual states pointless


There’s no such thing as one person one vote. We never worked like the EU. They tried to work like us.

The problem isn’t the EC. The problem is people don’t receive enough education about it or they choose to ignore what is being taught in favor of buying into the “one person one vote” nonsense. We are a nation of States with limited sovereignty among the states. You do away with the EC, you also do away with States rights. A popular election forces states into adherence with the most populous states at both the state and federal level.
Last edited by DL717 on Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2164
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:56 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Tugger wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

Your statement is totally false. Under your system CA and NY would be the only that would have a say in who becomes president. The EC makes sure the RI and other small states have a say. Even if it doesn't jive with the media and who they want in office.

I am not sure this is true. I hear it all the time (and by the way I do support the EC process in voting) but it is really true? Wouldn't a true direct voting process give a voice to the millions of voters in California who currently as said to not have a vote due to the state leaning one particular direction? It would do the same for all states, all voters in each state would get the ability for their votes to be heard so to speak.

So why is your statement, that standard claim (which I have used in the past but now don't) accurate?

Tugg


I bet if you went to one person one vote the number of Americans who vote would drastically increase, they would see that their vote counts. As you say millions of republicans in California would now have a reason to vote.


False. California is open primary with top two vote getters. Local elections and popular propositions draw voters. With only one party on about 60% of the ballots for local elections, voting is suppressed and it has nothing to do with the national election options. California is wrecked when it comes to elections now. Bravo!
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2164
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:03 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

So you're ok with the disenfranchisement of the majority of the country so the minority gets to effectively control the outcome of each presidential election?


Your statement is totally false. Under your system CA and NY would be the only that would have a say in who becomes president. The EC makes sure the RI and other small states have a say. Even if it doesn't jive with the media and who they want in office.


You can’t actually be serious? With one person one vote or if you keep the EC making it proportional every single person in the US’s vote would count, which it doesn’t at the moment, the tail is wagging the dog.


It is proportional. One vote for each house member. House seats are proportional to the population. One for each Senator to ensure the balance of power. State government can produce laws that remain within their boundaries, or meet the Court test to be implemented across all states.

Want to really fix it? Each presidential candidate receives an EC vote for each congressional district they win. If they get 50%+1 in a State they get both Senatorial Electors. If not, the top two split. Good for third parties as well making them relevant. You go popular vote it cements a two party system in the short term and a one party system within a decade like California.
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:00 pm

DL717 wrote:
False. California is open primary with top two vote getters. Local elections and popular propositions draw voters. With only one party on about 60% of the ballots for local elections, voting is suppressed and it has nothing to do with the national election options. California is wrecked when it comes to elections now. Bravo!

One effect of this though is that the "less radical" of the top two will in general be elected.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
NYCVIE
Topic Author
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:01 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:07 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The EC doesn’t disenfranchise anyone, their votes are counted by state, not nationally.


The votes are counted by state but then some states receive a disproportionately large boost because of the Electoral College. If you live in a state that reliably votes one way, if you happen to be on the other side your vote effectively doesn't count. Millions of people could (and do) vote for the Republican candidate in a state like California yet the result would be the exact same if zero people voted for that same candidate. Likewise in reliably Republican states. A popular vote would make Presidential elections less regional which really is what Congressional elections are for.

DL717 wrote:
It is proportional. One vote for each house member. House seats are proportional to the population. One for each Senator to ensure the balance of power. State government can produce laws that remain within their boundaries, or meet the Court test to be implemented across all states.

Want to really fix it? Each presidential candidate receives an EC vote for each congressional district they win. If they get 50%+1 in a State they get both Senatorial Electors. If not, the top two split. Good for third parties as well making them relevant. You go popular vote it cements a two party system in the short term and a one party system within a decade like California.

But the current House isn't really accurately proportional. If the House was uncapped and there was some solution to address the fact that the population has roughly quadrupled since it was last capped almost a century ago perhaps it would be.

I also in the long run think we need to move away from a two party system (which the EC actually contributes to) but I'm also not sure it makes sense to prop up a particular party for the sake of having two parties which the EC does. In the last 28 years, Republicans have won the popular vote ONCE yet have won three elections. That on its face just doesn't look fair.

The current winner take all EC not only renders votes for a state's losing party useless, but also renders additional votes for the winning party useless as well. In California for example, Clinton won 8.75 million votes to Trump's 4.48 million. The almost five million that voted for Trump effectively mean nothing on a national scale but so do the additional 4.2 million that voted for Clinton. The result would have been the same if Clinton had only won 4.5 million votes in the state yet the millions more votes cast for her mean nothing. The same is reversed in reliably Red states. So you are really reducing the power of votes on both sides of the aisle.

It's been mentioned in this thread I believe, but voting by district also has its own issues because of gerrymandering.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:20 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The EC doesn’t disenfranchise anyone, their votes are counted by state, not nationally.

Republicans in CA and Democrats in OK would disagree with you. Being overwhelmed by their political opposites, there's essentially no reason for them to vote. Their vote is essentially worthless. The Democrats in OK didn't add anything to Clinton, other than add to her tally for the popular vote. But in the EC, because it's WTA, they get shut off.

Heck, even in swing states one side gets completely shut off. In PA, that 47-48 result meant that the 48% that voted for Trump spoke for the entire state, even though that means that 52% of voters didn't want Trump. In FL's 2000 election, 536 votes swung the state to Bush...what does that say about the votes that went to Gore? Where is their say in the EC?

Your statement makes sense for statewide office. For POTUS, every voting citizen is voting for the same position; doesn't it make sense to make each vote count rather than segregate it by states?

But GF is right, what you are describing is not due to the EC but rather the states themselves. The states could (and I very much think they should) move to proportional application of electoral college votes as only Maine and Nebraska do currently. For obvious reason NEITHER party, Democrats nor Republicans, in most states actually want this as it would give voice to those they (the party in majority power in whichever state) they want to remain voiceless.
https://www.thecrosstab.com/2019/03/08/ ... portional/
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-el ... n-methods/

This is a state issue, not and EC issue, when you get down to it. Of course, as is noted in the 270towin link, all states moving to a full proportional solution could break the current system as 270 EC votes (currently) are required to win the presidency and an effective third party run could lead to a situation whereby no one party has 270. So you would need to change the Constitution as it requires an absolute majority for a candidate to secure the Presidency. (Hmmmm.. could there be a run off? Or is that not allowed per how the constitution is written?)

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:12 pm

Expanding the House is a vital first step, then the EC fixes itself, especially if we allocate EC votes by CD. A change I’d like to see, is very doable without any amending, compacts or other strange devices.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:07 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Expanding the House is a vital first step, then the EC fixes itself, especially if we allocate EC votes by CD. A change I’d like to see, is very doable without any amending, compacts or other strange devices.

Depends on what you mean by expanding the House.

Based on what? The same number of citizens per district? The same proportions to each other (state X's population/smallest state's population)? So that each EC vote carries the same weight throughout the country?

The first scenario could significantly increase the size of the House depending on what size is used.

The second one I've calculated back when Census estimates were released (the House would stand at about 564 members and all states except WY, VT, AK, and ND gain at least a second seat). CA would have 66 districts given it has about 66x WY's population.

The third one would require quite the increase. Say you wanted each vote to represent 200,000 residents. WY would have 5 EC votes (3 reps and 2 Senators). CA, on the other hand, would be at 198 districts (plus 2 Senators) with a total of 200 EC votes. This would result in a House size of 1636 members with 2019 estimates (and something tells me people wouldn't be on board with so many officials). However, adjusting the proportion so that each EC votes contains the same number of people across the country seems to be the best way to make the EC fairer. Under current rules, one EC vote in TX or CA groups well over 700k, while one EC vote in RI groups about 500k.

EDIT: I just realized, scenario 3 is really scenario 1. The third scenario would mean that if WY only gets 3 EC votes, then each other states' EC votes must have the same proportion. WY's 3 EC votes represent roughly 193,000 residents but it doesn't address the fact that in the House the sole Rep would have 578k people under their belt. The results would be roughly the same as in the scenario depicted above...CA would have 204 EC votes (202 districts + 2 Senators), TX would be at 150 votes (148+2).... The House would stand at 1696 members and the EC college would be 1796. Only VT and WY would remain with a single House member; All others would gain at least 1 (and the increases would be very significant...MT would have 4 districts, CO would have 28, GA would have 53..just to sample a few).
Last edited by einsteinboricua on Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:29 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
The third one would require quite the increase. Say you wanted each vote to represent 200,000 residents. WY would have 5 EC votes (3 reps and 2 Senators). CA, on the other hand, would be at 198 districts (plus 2 Senators) with a total of 200 EC votes. This would result in a House size of 1636 members with 2019 estimates (and something tells me people wouldn't be on board with so many officials). However, adjusting the proportion so that each EC votes contains the same number of people across the country seems to be the best way to make the EC fairer. Under current rules, one EC vote in TX or CA groups well over 700k, while one EC vote in RI groups about 500k.

I think this is the better, the best option.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Electoral College - Keep or Kill?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:14 am

I was planning something like number three—a ratio something between 1:200,000 to 250,000. Do not increase the staff population which are the real power on the hill. With a larger House, the likelihood of politicians with private sector experience, real understanding of how business and people work would increase; politicians wouldn’t be career lawyers turned pols like today. With greater numbers, some representatives could become real specialists in various fields like public safety, foreign affairs, justice. Perhaps even allow specialist committees to write the legislation that is now promulgated by unelected executive branch SES types. The present limit of 435 just puffs up the egos of narcissistic politicians by increasing each one’s power.

1636 members sounds about right. This would dilute the influence of senators in the EC. Allowing some form of proportional voting like Maine and Nebraska makes sense then. I might rather see the EC function as the selecting group and eliminate presidential voting, rather a mixed parliamentary system. People would campaign to be on the state’s electoral college slate, if elected the EC select the President and Vice President without public voting. Each vote for an elector would have much greater weight than what each voter has in today’s system. Campaigns at the national level are a waste of time and money and, after all, you want money out.


Btw, Vermont and Wyoming would have, at least 2, maybe 3, House members for 5 EC votes each.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlueberryWheats, Google Adsense [Bot], moo, Oliver2020, sierrakilo44, Tugger and 51 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos