|
With respect to the urban/rural argument on the EC, I saw somewhere that the numbers don't work out and a candidate wouldn't be able to win on urban areas alone (of course it depends on precisely how much of the urban vote that candidate gets; I don't have the numbers in front of me). Definitely a hosed up feature of our electoral system that turnout in the most populous regions of the country usually doesn't affect the outcome of the presidential election since most of them are in solid red/blue states. e: Though I guess this time we got to have that with Pennsylvania
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
All 4 EC over pop vote victories were for the Republican party, btw. E: It's like Presidential Welfare. Playstation 4 has issued a correction as of 13:07 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
The biggest problem is that it's a winner-take-all system instead of something proportional. Having my Oregon vote mean 10x less than a vote from someone in Florida or Ohio isn't really fair democratic process
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted: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." I have family in Dale, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Also the electoral college is actually gooder'n hell because it means dumbfuck states no one usually cares about (Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin) actually have a say in poo poo instead of the usual pandering to New York and the Silicon Valley.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
That's what the senate is for dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
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 That's a terrible argument because all you're doing with the EC is arbitrarily picking other states to control the process - why should Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida dominate the political stage instead? Ohio is a crumbling state around the edges with an economy built on a house of cards, Pennsylvania is a lovely state with two big population centers, Florida is Florida. All three states have huge white populations. California, Texas, and New York are at least the largest engines of our economy and are incredibly diverse demographics-wise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:I have family in Dale, gently caress you. So do I, you perpetual victim. Now if you wanna get down off of that cross, listen to my actual argument: the electoral college doesn't help any candidate go to Dale anyway. In fact, Indiana is completely ignored because its residents are so republican. Dale gets ignored in either instance, maybe without the electoral college though, people in Dale can cast a vote that counts, and the race for representatives can be seen as much more important. Playstation 4 posted:That's what the senate is for dumbass. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:That's what the senate is for dumbass. Yeah and the Senate is cool too. pathetic little tramp posted:So do I, you perpetual victim. Now if you wanna get down off of that cross, listen to my actual argument: the electoral college doesn't help any candidate go to Dale anyway. In fact, Indiana is completely ignored because its residents are so republican. Dale gets ignored in either instance, maybe without the electoral college though, people in Dale can cast a vote that counts, and the race for representatives can be seen as much more important. Officer I'm being assaulted on the internet by a hillary troll. Help me hel-
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:That's a terrible argument because all you're doing with the EC is arbitrarily picking other states to control the process - why should Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida dominate the political stage instead? You also have to assume that ending the EC would draw more people out to vote because a Republican in California now has an equal voice to a Democrat in Arkansas. Those votes are, at the end of the day, wasted in an EC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
tadashi posted:You also have to assume that ending the EC would draw more people out to vote because a Republican in California now has an equal voice to a Democrat in Arkansas. Those votes are, at the end of the day, wasted in an EC. Exactly something I just thought of arguing this with someone this morning. Hillary ended up winning the popular vote by, what, 150,000? Do you think maybe in a state of 50 million you could find plenty of republicans who didn't vote because their vote didn't count? Maybe not 150,000 worth, but extend that out to Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Hawai'i, New York, and the rest of New England and the race just might get a lot closer. Republicans don't really have much to fear with getting rid of the electoral college. They can still compete.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:That's what the senate is for dumbass. Maybe the President should just be elected by the Senate and Congress then if all of them are supposed to be representatives of the people anyways IMO, proportionally distributing electoral votes would probably be a good compromise since it still offsets the bias from densely populated sections of the US while giving individual votes a stronger voice compared to the previous system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Republicans don't really have much to fear with getting rid of the electoral college. They can still compete. or hell, get this: maybe a system where they can't win the presidency while losing the popular vote would force them to change their policy so as to enable them to win an election
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
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. It's the President of the United States, not the President of People in the States.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Probably better for the Dems to figure out why they've become a regional party of the Northeast and a handful of cities on the West coast than to try to change something set up in part to prevent regional parties from populous states from running everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Just lottery for which states get the electoral college votes every four years. California, you get...THREE. Wyoming...FIFTY FIVE JACKPOT WOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Maybe the President should just be elected by the Senate and Congress then if all of them are supposed to be representatives of the people anyways That could work only if we had independent commissions drawing state districts (though that would eventually become corrupt as hell also). As it is, with gerrymandering, you'd end up with insane situations where Trump wins 470 to 68. That sort of election actually gives cities disproportionately less power and you end up with the same level of disenfranchisement because people in cities decide not to vote since their vote won't count.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:That could work only if we had independent commissions drawing state districts (though that would eventually become corrupt as hell also). As it is, with gerrymandering, you'd end up with insane situations where Trump wins 470 to 68. That sort of election actually gives cities disproportionately less power and you end up with the same level of disenfranchisement because people in cities decide not to vote since their vote won't count. I don't mean apportioning by district, I mean taking the Percent per state and then apportioning Electoral Votes based on those proportions ala the Primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
move to a parliamentary system imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:All 4 EC over pop vote victories were for the Republican party, btw. Well not really but you can go ahead and think that if you want. Also 3 of those 5 presidents beat out racist people so that works for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:move to a parliamentary system imo If anything is effective at stemming the tide of facism, it's a parliamentary sysytem lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Maybe the President should just be elected by the Senate and Congress then if all of them are supposed to be representatives of the people anyways Why is it desirable in a democracy to "give individual votes a stronger voice" by unfairly privileging some people's votes over other people's votes? Remember, it's not places that cast votes, it's people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why is it desirable in a democracy to "give individual votes a stronger voice" by unfairly privileging some people's votes over other people's votes? Remember, it's not places that cast votes, it's people. Because direct voting doesn't work for a reason that doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
No one will ever be able to justify such a retarded system of the EC being winner-take-all from each state and still having individual voting Oh no!! drat smarties in the cities are tellin' me what to do out here in the countryside!!! Muh freedums!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
The United States isn't a direct democracy, and every state agreed to the rules when they joined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Yeah those rules made sense 250 years ago when counting ballot results was incredibly finicky but i'd like to think that in the past 2 and a half centuries maybe we'd be able to work it out and we can always change the rules so that easily avoidable poo poo stops happening Oregon Washington and Colorado all have mail-in ballots, and consistently some of the highest voting numbers in the country. If anything, that would be a huge incentive to actually get more than 40% of this stupid country to vote
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why is it desirable in a democracy to "give individual votes a stronger voice" by unfairly privileging some people's votes over other people's votes? Remember, it's not places that cast votes, it's people. Except time and money are finite so for a given candidate, it's more cost effective for them to spend those in places where there are A. The most votes per area and B. The most changeable votes per area. As an example, Senate races are tied to districts so it behooves them to skip the flyover portions of their state and focus most of their attention on the cities unless the people in those flyover areas have a lot of money and/or influence (i.e. agricultural states). Xelkelvos has issued a correction as of 20:29 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Because I have time while at work, here's the proportional EV system I mentioned with the current election. It's in a Google Sheet and includes the %difference between them. Final Total: Hillary 269, Trump 260. 3rd Party candidates aren't separated out, but iirc McMuffin would've gotten two and Johnson 6. Stein gets 1 because California has a shitton of EVs. Also, while Hillary has the Plurality in votes, Trump has a higher average %difference among states by ~0.5%
Xelkelvos has issued a correction as of 20:39 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
rename it trump university
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
the most privileged point of view
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Zas posted:states rights: suck I'm not really a PSL guy as much as I am an insane American exceptionalist
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
General Dog posted:The United States isn't a direct democracy, and every state agreed to the rules when they joined. And yet almost none of the people in those states did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
The electoral college reduces the importance of huge states like california and texas that have titanic populations. They still contribute to voting for the president via a value linked to their census numbers, but surges in how many people vote in a state are insulated from the other states; giving a powerful state even more power if the democrats/republicans rally a bunch of people is not attractive for places that are more rural.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:The electoral college reduces the importance of huge states like california and texas that have titanic populations. They still contribute to voting for the president via a value linked to their census numbers, but surges in how many people vote in a state are insulated from the other states; giving a powerful state even more power if the democrats/republicans rally a bunch of people is not attractive for places that are more rural. Again, it's a horrible argument to try and convince people in a democracy that it's okay if some people's votes count less because of where they were born/live. There is absolutely no way to have democracy actually work and also make this "the states with big populations will control everything!!!!!" argument make sense. It's not 1800 anymore and people aren't damned to live and die on the same plot of farm their entire lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:Again, it's a horrible argument to try and convince people in a democracy that it's okay if some people's votes count less because of where they were born/live. There is absolutely no way to have democracy actually work and also make this "the states with big populations will control everything!!!!!" argument make sense. It's not 1800 anymore and people aren't damned to live and die on the same plot of farm their entire lives. what if some are though
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Then it would still be about 1000x better than the system we currently have
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
I'll be cool with the electoral college if, come December 19th, they finally get perform the one job they have, the reason why we have actual people casting actual votes at this step, rather than just determining the result by the election numbers, which is to prevent an madman, dangerous populist, or foreign plant from somehow gaining the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Just wait until an election where the Republican gets a majority of the popular vote but the Democrat wins by electoral votes. The EC will be gone before you know it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:Why cant't it just be one vote equals one vote, whoever gets the most votes wins? This. Why can't POTUS votes be counted and tallied locally but simply treated like a referendum? 57M = winner, 55M = loser. I understand the historical basis but what is the reason this can't be done? Is it to do with thresholds for minor party nominee participation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
It's ironic to see Alex Jones'  'they want to drive everybody into these megacities that will rule over the entire country and make you voiceless' being argued as a good thing here.Any system that disenfranchises entire states is a bad thing. Sorry your candidate lost but them's the breaks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:18
|
|