|
The Kingfish posted:Just locally organize you big bunch of babies. Typical of bourgeois liberals to call for a fantasy fix-all solution at the federal level. This is projection.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Just locally organize you big bunch of babies. Typical of bourgeois liberals to call for a fantasy fix-all solution at the federal level. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
the problem with people whining about the electoral college is that they're not thinking big enough. all the problems with the electoral college are just symptomatic of the same problems that make representative democracy farcical and corrupt
Digiwizzard has issued a correction as of 04:02 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:the problem with people whining about the electoral college is that they're not thinking big enough. all the problems with the electoral college are just symptomatic of the same problems that make representative democracy farcical and corrupt "that's nice lenin, but this is a mcdonald's drive thru"
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
is the problem that we're thinking too big or not big enough? imo the problem is people don't realize that this isn't a forum for like organizing labor or trying to pass policy, its a forum for shooting the poo poo about politics so being like "OMG NERDS STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS ONLY TALK ABOUT MY poo poo" is really loving annoying
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
at the absolute minimum, they could stop doing the incredibly stupid thing whereby all the electors in a state go for the winner of said state. why not just make them proportional? you win 2/3 of the vote in a state, you get 2/3 of the electors. it will never be that precise but whatever just round it. the people concerned about rural states being shut out by straight popular vote don't have to worry because votes in small states still count for more than votes in big states, but now you've basically gotten rid of swing states and elections being decided by tiny margins in three or four places instead of the nation as a whole. candidates will have to go to every state, not just the places they view are safe, or avoiding places they don't have a chance of winning. right now all the system does is entrench political parties where they are - why should democrats care about the south and midwest if they will never ever ever ever win anything there? why should republicans even try considering new england and the west coast if basically none of it is ever going red ever? as much as i think the concern of 'popular vote just means nyc and la will decide every election' is bullshit, it is a concern that's complicated to disprove and takes a lot of explaining and people will reject it at large on that basis. in a proportional EC, no, NYC and LA will not decide every election, because basically someone's vote in NYC is worth like a tenth of someone who lives in like montana still, and that's still not ideal. but it's a lot easier to implement than reworking the entire basis through which the constitution and states have agreed to elect the president, it makes a lot more sense, immediately fixes the major issue, and makes the system as a whole much, much more representative and understandable and gets rid of the baffling problem whereby you can get millions and millions more people to vote for you than your competitors, and still lose
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
you do that and the republicans would jizz their pants sure, i'll trade 30% of california's electoral votes for the corresponding amount of votes in wyoming i also have this cow if you have any magic beans
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
which is exactly why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact exists
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:you do that and the republicans would jizz their pants I have a bridge in London too, any takers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:13
|
|