|
jBrereton posted:No, like the American election, the goal is to secure the most points. The better American Football analogy is probably total yardage
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Okay sorry for my tremendously flawed analogy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Nah man, just get more votes!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Yeah. Tyranny of the majority is real. Back during the Revolution the founding fathers didn't want New York and Boston deciding everything, because despite most of them being from those highly populated parts of the early Union, they understood that it would disenfranchise the rural population especially as the nation expanded and became more diverse. Tyranny of the minority is not a preferable solution. If everyone lived in New York and Boston, then that's what politics should reflect. The EC has nothing to do with urban vs rural. States like Connecticut and Rhode Island are urban, but small, and get disproportionate clout. Most states have a significant metropolitan area in them, and are a diverse mix of urban and rural. New York and Los Angeles do not dominate the country, as you seem to think. Ultimately the number of people disenfranchised by the EC is far greater. Any non swing state, the minority coalition in that state is completely unrepresented. And the majority in large states like NY and CA (and theoretically some other year, TX and FL), is disenfranchised, for no reason. 200 years of good government? Are you joking? The US is tearing itself apart. In the past the EC affected very few elections because most elections historically were landslides. Now, in an environment where politics are polarized and elections are always close, the likelihood of an EC / popular vote split is much higher, and it's becoming a threat to our stability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
General Dog posted:What's the incentive for any state that's either small or typically competitive to join? Competitive states won't always be that way. The swing states shift around as the coalitions in the parties shift around. 80 years ago, Vermont was the reddest state. Now it's the bluest. Eventually the majority that feels it's being disenfranchised by the EC will cycle through enough large states to hit 270.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Trump grabbed the golden snatch
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
you should get twenty bucks if you vote in a federal election
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:People wouldn't accept a sport where 7% of the time the team that got more points ends up taking a loss, and they shouldn't stand for it on things that actually matter. Winning EC votes is scoring points, winning the popular vote is like having the most first downs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:*Clinton loses 31-17 in a rugby league game* General Dog posted:Winning EC votes is scoring points, winning the popular vote is like having the most first downs. Your argument is that under the current system, electoral votes are all that matters, not the popular vote. this is true. no one is disputing this. the discussion is about whether another system, direct popular election of the president, would better promote the welfare and stability of the republic. that's a totally different question. the goal of a rugby game is to entertain the fans, so a better  ***sports analogy*** might be "if drop goals awarded more points, would the game be more dynamic and fun to watch?"major league sports change their rules all the time to promote the health and well-being of the sport. perhaps america should consider doing the same? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Nah dude just get more votes
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
fwiw, the current political system of the US is wildly different from the one intended & created by the founders. if the electoral college still provides benefits for us, it's by coincidence, not by intent. i don't think any such coincidence applies, and any system that systemically disenfranchises the inhabitants of the country's most populous states is probably bad for the republic. but i really could be wrong! american politics are complex and surprisingly fragile; you never know when a superficially beneficial democratic reform, like the abolishment of congressional earmarks, will send the entire thing to a grinding halt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:fwiw, the current political system of the US is wildly different from the one intended & created by the founders. if the electoral college still provides benefits for us, it's by coincidence, not by intent. The greater Los Angeles area has a population of about 19 million. The states of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Nevada combined have a population of about 19 million. That's 16 states out of 50, or 1/3. Coincidentally it takes a 2/3 majority of states to change the constitution. Why on earth would anyone expect 16 states representing huge swathes of the country get together an say "Hey, you know what, lets cede one city in one state as much power as all of us combined".
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Why on earth would anyone expect 16 states representing huge swathes of the country get together an say "Hey, you know what, lets cede one city in one state as much power as all of us combined". Because in democracy, everyone gets one vote. If you don't agree with the way that the people in LA vote, you can try to convince them to change their mind or move and try to make it swing the other way. It's not like the LA is some kind of living organism hive mind that knows better than those other states. Opinions and voting can change all the time. This election has absolutely proved that. Arguing for this system is arguing against real democracy. Since the EC votes are supposed to be proportional to population, your argument doesn't hold up anyways. This is exactly why winner-take-all needs to loving go. Teikanmi has issued a correction as of 18:06 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Winner take all and first past the post aren't necessarily features of the electoral college. Those parts are determined by the state
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
an actual sports analogy would be Hillary wins game 1 100-0 Trump wins game 2 6-4 Trump wins game 3 2-1 Clinton complains that she scored the must runs and therefore is the winner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Also if hillary had gotten more votes she would've won. Really makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
I don't see the problem with requiring everyone in the country to move to one of a few coastal megacities if they want their vote to count
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Do you think the men of Athens complained about all of the property owning country bumpkins out in the boonies who were ruining the city state with their ridiculous voting habits?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Fortuitous Bumble posted:I don't see the problem with requiring everyone in the country to move to one of a few coastal megacities if they want their vote to count But enough about how the electoral college favors Florida and Ohio...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:Because in democracy, everyone gets one vote. If you don't agree with the way that the people in LA vote, you can try to convince them to change their mind or move and try to make it swing the other way. It's not like the LA is some kind of living organism hive mind that knows better than those other states. Opinions and voting can change all the time. This election has absolutely proved that. Arguing for this system is arguing against real democracy. Since the EC votes are supposed to be proportional to population, your argument doesn't hold up anyways. Maine did a cool thing with its voting system. More states should do that thing. Frankly the democrats ARE huge cucks for not making electoral reform a central part of their platform after 2000, and look at where they are now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Mental-Rectangle posted:Maine did a cool thing with its voting system. More states should do that thing. Frankly the democrats ARE huge cucks for not making electoral reform a central part of their platform after 2000, and look at where they are now. Allocating via congressional districts seems to run into the gerrymandering districts problem. It's probably less significant than the EV/Popular Vote divide, but it's still an issue there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Focusing on the popular vote also ignores the point that we don't know what this election would have looked like if it was a nationwide vote instead of a 50 separate state level votes. Would more people have showed up in states that were solidly in the camp of one candidate or another? And that could go both ways - in California would you have had more Trump supporters show up because they thought their vote could make a difference, or would there have been more Hillary supporters who stayed home on Tuesday since they knew she would win the state that would have voted? Would people who protest voted for third parties got in line? Who knows! And that would have played out all around the country. We have no way of knowing what the vote totals would have been if it was straight popular vote.
Thoguh has issued a correction as of 20:58 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:The greater Los Angeles area has a population of about 19 million. The states of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Nevada combined have a population of about 19 million. That's 16 states out of 50, or 1/3. Coincidentally it takes a 2/3 majority of states to change the constitution. I personally wouldn't expect anything of the sort, since it's profoundly against the self-interest of those states, and I don't expect anything to come of this. Just like in 2000. Still fun to think about! Peanut President posted:an actual sports analogy would be you realize that clinton conceded several days ago, right
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Focusing on the popular vote also ignores the point that we don't know what this election would have looked like if it was a nationwide vote instead of a 50 separate state level votes. Would more people have showed up in states that were solidly in the camp of one candidate or another? And that could go both ways - in California would you have had more Trump supporters show up because they thought there vote could make a difference, or would there have been more Hillary supporters who stayed home on Tuesday since they knew she would win the state that would have voted? Would people who protest voted for third parties got in line? Who knows! And that would have played out all around the country. We have no way of knowing what the vote totals would have been if it was straight popular vote. Yes, more people would vote in general if their vote wasn't considered wasted in whatever state they're voting in. More people would vote if they couldn't go "oh, that's right...I'm in NY, which always goes blue, so no need to vote dem". That's the thing with NY also, a ton of it is it red but Manhattan always goes blue so none of the red counties matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
 Maybe someone should've told her she's been playing the wrong game this whole time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
CalvinCoolidge posted:
Doesn't that count the primaries that went early so the DNC announced they wouldn't count but Hillary campaigned there anyway and then tried to get them to count after she won?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:an actual sports analogy would be That's not analogous at all. It's more like a tennis match where one person wins every game in the sets that they win, but narrowly lose the sets that they lose, and they lose a majority of sets. As a result, despite scoring more points and winning more games, the demarcation of the sets causes them to lose. It'd be like that except... y'know... with human rights and poo poo thrown in too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
a personal appeal from me, jimbo wales: please stop with the terrible sports analogies
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Fortuitous Bumble posted:I don't see the problem with requiring everyone in the country to move to one of a few coastal megacities if they want their vote to count Well they should move anyway if they dont want to be stuck in a hellhole like oklahoma, run by evil dipshits who privatize schools and defund public services.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Mental-Rectangle posted:That's not analogous at all. So it's like if you scored more 3 pointers but lost the game due to your lack of defense against the post?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
AND TRUMP WITH THE TURNAROUND JAM TO WIN WISCONSIN
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
This series is where I got the 7% thing from and also does a better job of explaining why the EC is dog poo poo than any goon ever could https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
The EC is only a failure if your a retard who thinks a democratic vote process is equivalent to a democratic nation
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Mental-Rectangle posted:Maine did a cool thing with its voting system. More states should do that thing. Frankly the democrats ARE huge cucks for not making electoral reform a central part of their platform after 2000, and look at where they are now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Fortuitous Bumble posted:I don't see the problem with requiring everyone in the country to move to one of a few coastal megacities if they want their vote to count except taking away the electoral college would do the exact opposite of that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:This series is where I got the 7% thing from and also does a better job of explaining why the EC is dog poo poo than any goon ever could CGP Grey is a loving moron, dog.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Cool dude
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:The EC is only a failure if your a retard who thinks a democratic vote process is equivalent to a democratic nation if you could change the us political system in any way you wanted, what changes would you make?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:Cool dude Glad we agree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:if you could change the us political system in any way you wanted, what changes would you make? I don't have a problem with the federal process, even though as a rural Californian, technically my federal presidential vote isn't worth much. What I would like to change is the California legislature to make it more of a microcosm of the federal system where the rural areas that I live in actually have a voice. For example, us rural users have to pay huge costs for water, and have large parts of our natural environment taken up by huge reservoirs for the large cities in the south, and we have no recourse under Californias largely direct democracy
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 00:24
|
|