|
AKA Pseudonym posted:Jill Stein uncovering a Russian intelligence operation to rig an American election is the sort of thing that could only happen an insane fever dream so I fully expect it to happen Honestly, is it any less likely than Donald Trump becoming President?
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
Tiberius Christ posted:Hillary spent over a billion dollars and lost. Trump didn't need to because he had a message that voters wanted. You mean the message that 2 million fewer people wanted that just happened to be arbitrarily distributed in key states?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Youre all about diversity until its working against you. Not to say the current EC is perfect, but i dont want my president creating her whole platform for NY, CHI and LA and saying "everyone else can suck it". Ah yes, so the President should craft their whole platform for Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Iowa, and everyone else outside of those states should suck it. That's the system that works the best!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Also the argument that "If we abolished the Electoral College presidential candidates would just campaign on the coasts" is ridiculous. Hell, Texas is the second-largest state in the country, you think Hillary wouldn't have held rallies in San Antonio or Trump in Dallas if the popular vote mattered?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Niton posted:No, but that's what happened in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012 It's worth noting that the House has been capped at 435 seats since 1916, when the population of the United States was 102 million. We're at 320 million now, and would have ~1300 congressmen if that ratio had been kept the same, and therefore 1400 Electoral Votes. If we wanted to fix the Electoral College and help break gerrymandering in one shot, we'd simply increase the number of Congressmen to a more representative level-but we won't, because 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
And even if it was 2 billion a year, is that really a price that's too high to pay to unfuck the Electoral College and weaken the influence of gerrymandering?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
gently caress they don't vote simultaneously on most things now, there's literally an hour window where people just run over to their seat and press a button (Or have someone press it for them).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
People used to literally have sticks so they could reach over and vote for people seated at the desks in front of or behind them 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:I'm not suggesting state consolidation is realistically in the cards. I'm saying that one should consider the nature of what a state is in the present day, and how they came to be, before trotting out the argument about how important it is to protect the outsized political power of less-populated states. It's worth mentioning that the House was meant to be the counterbalance to influence of smaller states in the Senate, but since the House has been capped at 435 members for over a hundred years, disproportionate representation has completely wiped out the supposed advantage in population. Really, the Constitution's biggest issues in the modern day don't have as much to do with the document itself, which is still fairly serviceable, but instead the layers of tradition and inertia gathered around it that have effectively warped much of the Founders' original intent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
phasmid posted:Yeah. More evidence that they didn't do as much reaching out as was pretended. There was a ton of reaching out that was done, but it ended up happening in places like Texas and Arizona, where the increased latino vote couldn't overcome the massive white margins for Trump. It did help save Nevada's Senate seat, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 02:51
|
|