|
just a thought. was personally never that into it
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
Yes, yes and yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Whoa. Unprecedented, clever electoral reform there buddy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
thanks iw orked hard on it
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
It worked as designed this election
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:It worked as designed this election cant argue with that. still not into it tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Zas posted:just a thought. was personally never that into it sounds good
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
goons in USPOL were defending it before this vote, and a few are still defending it
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Yeah I'm finally off the electoral college train. Two elections out of five being decided by razor thin margins in arbitrary states has proven the electoral college is flawed and must be eliminated. The major argument: "This will lead to larger states having undue influence on the presidential election." The counter to that: "Currently, certain states do have undue influence on the presidential election, and the criteria is simply 'well these states aren't consistent in their thinking'" The second major argument: "The candidate won't visit rural voters because it makes more sense to just campaign in cities." The counter to that: "It's 2016. Most rural areas have access to some way to view a presidential candidate without having them stop in Dale, Indiana. Additionally, candidates already rarely visit rural areas because in places like Pennsylvania they only want to visit major to mid-size cities anyway. It's a matter of efficiency. I'm not going to stop in on Ulysses Pennsylvania when I could be hitting up Pittsburgh, Erie, Allentown, Philly. In fact, to go back to our first point, the electoral college actually makes it so that the only cities that do get visited are those cities in arbitrarily selected states that hardly change." The third major argument: "The candidate will only make policy that effects cities, not rural areas" The counter to that: "This is specifically what your representatives are for. A candidate isn't just going to be talking to random people, they're going to be trying to get endorsements from elected representatives as well. They want to shore up their support in the House of Representatives, they want to be an effective president, they're going to make rural policy to convince rural voters to elect representatives that share their views. If the democrat cannot appeal to rural voters, the democrat loses out on key seats in the house. Additionally, this assumes city dwellers are unaffected by rural policies, which is a naive theory. City voters are more nuanced than that and will have concerns about things like farm subsidies. To assume a voter only votes based on their residence is reductionist." But most importantly, the electoral college reduces voter turnout. Why should someone in West Virginia even care to come out? They know if they vote for Hillary, it's getting turned into a vote for Trump anyway. This depresses democratic voters and entrenches parties into states. Why should a republican even care to vote in Illinois? Why should a democrat even care to vote in Oklahoma? By abolishing the electoral college, we instead drive more people to the polls, giving us a more representative democracy of the people, and making more people feel involved in the process. It's for these reasons that we must abolish the electoral college with a constitutional amendment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Literally every argument you had in there except the bit about small states having power to rival large states is actually an argument against first past the post, dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Literally every argument you had in there except the bit about small states having power to rival large states is actually an argument against first past the post, dumbass. Do you think fptp is more simple to eliminate than the EC?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
I like watching people stand up there like john madden and diagram the states, it make me feel like my vote matters just as much as everyone else's
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Hilary literally lost every state in the rust belt. Instead of casting blame on parts of the process were in no position to fix, juuuuust maybe we should figure out why an entire region of the US wasn't motivated enough to turn out for the Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Hilary literally lost every state in the rust belt. Instead of casting blame on parts of the process were in no position to fix, juuuuust maybe we should figure out why an entire region of the US wasn't motivated enough to turn out for the Democrat. why not both?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Let's just do what they do in Australia and fine people if they don't turn out to vote; trade the Electoral College for Compulsory Voting, it is a more officious sounding term anyways. Also, while we're at it, let's make election days into federal holidays.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Do you think fptp is more simple to eliminate than the EC? Eliminating First Past The Post systems will achieve more democratic elections without diminishing the ability of low-population areas to have self-agency in a nation where states like California have huge numbers of voters and most of that population votes the same way. People on the internet (almost always middle class college students) love to talk about how the electoral college is 'undemocratic' but in reality it preserves the equality of the American republic. Internet neoliberals don't like it because, currently, it supports their opponents more than it supports them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Eliminating First Past The Post systems will achieve more democratic elections without diminishing the ability of low-population areas to have self-agency in a nation where states like California have huge numbers of voters and most of that population votes the same way. People on the internet (almost always middle class college students) love to talk about how the electoral college is 'undemocratic' but in reality it preserves the equality of the American republic. Internet neoliberals don't like it because, currently, it supports their opponents more than it supports them. Arend Lijphart's APSA presidential address outlines much of this, but to completely fix American democracy you need: - national popular vote for President - PR legislature - compulsory voting - Election Day as a holiday
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Eliminating First Past The Post systems will achieve more democratic elections without diminishing the ability of low-population areas to have self-agency in a nation where states like California have huge numbers of voters and most of that population votes the same way. People on the internet (almost always middle class college students) love to talk about how the electoral college is 'undemocratic' but in reality it preserves the equality of the American republic. Internet neoliberals don't like it because, currently, it supports their opponents more than it supports them. you dodged the question tho.... the electoral college is much easier to eliminate than fptp. and in order for low population areas to have 'self agency' is it really necessary to dramatically reduce the voting power of millions of urban people of all socioeconomic classes specifically in presidential elections? especially when low population area people already enjoy incredibly privileged status as voters via the senate? seems like a fuckin absurd argument Mia Wasikowska has issued a correction as of 05:53 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
How the gently caress does the electoral college without first past the post even work. Eliminate whoever got the least Electoral college votes and try again? That sounds like a clusterfuck that would immediately produce outcomes dumb enough to get everyone to want to immediately scrap it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Eliminating the electoral college would eliminate the ideal of the American republic. We, as a nation, shouldn't do things the wrong way because it is easier. We should do things the moral, righteous way even if it is difficult. Especially if it is difficult
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Why cant't it just be one vote equals one vote, whoever gets the most votes wins?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Eliminating the electoral college would eliminate the ideal of the American republic. We, as a nation, shouldn't do things the wrong way because it is easier. We should do things the moral, righteous way even if it is difficult. Especially if it is difficult Why are worried about the ideal of the American Republic when what we want is an equal democracy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Eliminating the electoral college would eliminate the ideal of the American republic. no it wouldn't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Eliminating the electoral college would eliminate the ideal of the American republic. We, as a nation, shouldn't do things the wrong way because it is easier. We should do things the moral, righteous way even if it is difficult. Especially if it is difficult but also you could use this rhetoric about just about anything. its completely empty. im disappointed i thought maybe you'd have something to say 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:Why are worried about the ideal of the American Republic when what we want is an equal democracy? There's nothing equal about letting Texas and California and New York dominate the political stage even more than they already do
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:There's nothing equal about letting Texas and California and New York dominate the political stage even more than they already do If everyone's vote just counts as a vote regardless of what state they are in then it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:It worked as designed this election It did, and that's why it needs to 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:There's nothing equal about letting Texas and California and New York dominate the political stage even more than they already do we're not talking about restructuring the senate though? although hey maybe someday
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Zas posted:we're not talking about restructuring the senate though? although hey maybe someday you mean the House right. The house's share of representatives are based on population, white senators are a measly 2 per state. In fact removing the electoral college would be the Presidential election version of making the Senate scale with population also.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:you mean the House right. The house's share of representatives are based on population, white senators are a measly 2 per state. In fact removing the electoral college would be the Presidential election version of making the Senate scale with population also. no, sorry that wasn't clear, what i mean is that low population areas already are compensated in terms of political influence via the senate. why do they also need the same power in presidential elections?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
How much power do you think states should have in general? Are they more mini-countries inside a country or more just a simple first level division on a country? Therefore are the states voting for the president or are the people? That's how the reasoning behind the EC makes sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Abolish deez nuts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Andorra posted:How much power do you think states should have in general? Are they more mini-countries inside a country or more just a simple first level division on a country? Therefore are the states voting for the president or are the people? That's how the reasoning behind the EC makes sense to me. well, who does the american president lead and serve, in practical terms? is he he leader of a federation of small countries or is he the leader of a nation? some people seem to like to pretend its the former, but in reality, as far as I can tell, its much more the latter, or, at best, a mixture of both. but suppose its the former. that's still no argument that we should grant certain states weighted power in determining the leader of the federal government. you're getting closer conceptually, but it still doesn't answer why residents of an essentially artificial construct called rhode island should have more power per vote than residents of the essentially artificial construct called california.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:There's nothing equal about letting Texas and California and New York dominate the political stage even more than they already do  @ people who think this(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
but i mean, thats all kinda academic. the federalists already won, the union won, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
The electoral college is good when it helps the guy I like win, but bad when it makes the guy I like lose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Sun Wu Kampf posted:The electoral college is good when it helps the guy I like win, but bad when it makes the guy I like lose. cool but honestly i never really liked it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
states rights: suck states: are not nations. they have no real identity of their own, beyond a very superficial one. and if they did, if I'm wrong about this, that doesn't mean that some states should have artificially weighted power. larry, honestly, i'm surprised to see a psl guy all into states rights
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
no
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
The electoral college is like every too much: costs far too much and provides almost no benefit, but you still have to have it for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:14
|
|
