|
It can work that way, but during most of America's history, democracies were dominated by mob pilot tics and lacked much in the way of long term planning that was enjoyed by monarchies and oligarchies. The founding fathers described it as tyranny of the majority.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Un loving ironically, if you don't like living in an indirect representational republic with a federal government instead of a central government, move somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
I think we should focus on the bullshit of Iowa caucuses going first. That needs to stop. The nominating process needs to be cleaned up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Docahedron posted:I think we should focus on the bullshit of Iowa caucuses going first. That needs to stop. The nominating process needs to be cleaned up. The parties should randomize the order of the primaries every cycle, just for fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Duscat posted: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. why on earth would they do that? what motivation does any trump elector have to switch their vote?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Docahedron posted:I think we should focus on the bullshit of Iowa caucuses going first. That needs to stop. The nominating process needs to be cleaned up. Iowa has the right to determine how they run elections. The states right to do so is a cornerstone of the American federation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:why on earth would they do that? what motivation does any trump elector have to switch their vote? These are the same people that non-ironically believe superdelegates are a "feature" of the Democratic Party's nomination process and not a means of ensuring the well-connected, corrupt elites of their party have a bigger say than Joe Schmoe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
this electoral college is a real jerk!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Un loving ironically, if you don't like living in an indirect representational republic with a federal government instead of a central government, move somewhere else. Cowards move, patriots stay and fight. Our electoral system is unfair garbage and it gives us lovely governments. You clearly seem to consider that a feature. It's simple enough to fix, once enough states sign on the NPVIC the electoral college will simply be gone, except as a formality. States can individually change their voting systems (Maine just did). It's a slow process but this country is ALSO designed to modify its government over time to suit the needs of the times. All of the tools to make it more democratic and more fair exist it's just a matter of winning elections to get to make the changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Mental-Rectangle posted:Cowards move, patriots stay and fight. Our electoral system is unfair garbage and it gives us lovely governments. You clearly seem to consider that a feature. It's simple enough to fix, once enough states sign on the NPVIC the electoral college will simply be gone, except as a formality. States can individually change their voting systems (Maine just did). It's a slow process but this country is ALSO designed to modify its government over time to suit the needs of the times. All of the tools to make it more democratic and more fair exist it's just a matter of winning elections to get to make the changes. What's the incentive for any state that's either small or typically competitive to join?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Hahahahaha your only hope is literally " I hope the electoral college does something it never has done, ever"The only time the EC hasn't done it's job entirely is when 22 delegates abstained in 1836 because they didn't like that the winner had had an interracial seuxal relationship with someone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Mental-Rectangle posted:Cowards move, patriots stay and fight. Our electoral system is unfair garbage and it gives us lovely governments. You clearly seem to consider that a feature. It's simple enough to fix, once enough states sign on the NPVIC the electoral college will simply be gone, except as a formality. States can individually change their voting systems (Maine just did). It's a slow process but this country is ALSO designed to modify its government over time to suit the needs of the times. All of the tools to make it more democratic and more fair exist it's just a matter of winning elections to get to make the changes. It's a feature because it gave us good governments for the last 200 years
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
im gonna quote this dudes words about the EC nowquote:The electoral college was decided around the founding of the US Constitution as a safeguard against direct democracy, which at the time was perceived as a potential stepping stone to mob rule, and as a compromise to prevent a bitch fight between the current members of Congress, as the electors are chosen by the states themselves. in summary: shut the gently caress up you retarded babies and go back to huffing coke off your tear-stained pictures of lena dunham, the EC's working exactly the way it's supposed to
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Sun Wu Kampf posted:Hahahahaha your only hope is literally " Hmm what I'm getting from this is that there's still a chance that Bernie could win this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
You'll still never be able to reconcile that the electoral college makes all but a few states' votes count for practically nothing. It's supposed to protect against tyranny but it basically makes tyrants of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and other swing states. Winner-take-all is a complete joke of a system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Those states are swing states because the people who vote there are mostly not party-voting retards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Those states are swing states because the people who vote there are mostly not party-voting retards. the overwhelming majority of people in every US state vote for the same party in every national election. this includes the people in swing states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Docahedron posted:I think we should focus on the bullshit of Iowa caucuses going first. That needs to stop. The nominating process needs to be cleaned up. Larry Parrish posted:Iowa has the right to determine how they run elections. The states right to do so is a cornerstone of the American federation. actually, the nominating process isn't controlled by the government at all. it's purely a matter of the state and federal political parties, which are private organizations. it has nothing to do with states rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted: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 Voting was really restricted in early America On a Federal level, you could only vote for your Representative and that's it State government chose your Senator Thus states had electoral votes equal to the number of Representatives and Senators they had, and those Representatives and Senators chose the President for their state The Electoral College wasn't really designed for direct democracy - the direct democracy bit came much later and was decided by individual states
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:actually, the nominating process isn't controlled by the government at all. it's purely a matter of the state and federal political parties, which are private organizations. it has nothing to do with states rights. Private organizations also deserve the right to do things how they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted: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. Lol repubs would never agree to that, they'd never win again
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Having a parlimentary system might be cool too, but we'd need to eliminate fptp and winnertakeall (WTA) to get smaller parties for that to work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Private organizations also deserve the right to do things how they want. That's not a very good argument. There are limits in place regarding campaigning, weak as they are It's in the public interest
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
If people aren't happy with their parties nomination process they are free to register for another party instead. People like to claim that third parties are impossible in America. I think that was true back in the day of JFK and such. But the 1930s saw both parties lose major ground to the Populists and the Progressives. If FDR hadn't successfully managed to compromise with them, I believe they could have gotten a candidate to the White House regardless. People in general are so horribly disillusioned in both major parties these days. The true problem with third parties is that most of them are too narrow in their platform (greens) or merely a slightly different take on current capitalist parties (DSA, Libertarians)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Keep in mind that a democracy ought to protect its weakest members Regarding parties as private bodies is tremendously disenfranchising to those with no means to the top (in first-past-the-post) eg private enterprise itself is governed by laws that dictate their own governance and ownership out of the public interest from other post Man Musk has issued a correction as of 10:30 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
America isn't a democracy
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Americans don't want you to know this one simple trick! For real though FPTP and winner-take-all has gotta loving go in The Year of Our Lord Turmp 2017 but I know it wont because hope is mind poison
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:Americans don't want you to know this one simple trick!  
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
Mental-Rectangle posted:Cowards move, patriots stay and fight. Our electoral system is unfair garbage and it gives us lovely governments. You clearly seem to consider that a feature. It's simple enough to fix, once enough states sign on the NPVIC the electoral college will simply be gone, except as a formality. States can individually change their voting systems (Maine just did). It's a slow process but this country is ALSO designed to modify its government over time to suit the needs of the times. All of the tools to make it more democratic and more fair exist it's just a matter of winning elections to get to make the changes. Why would swing states sign a compact that gives away their own power? Why would Red states sign a compact that gives away their own power?  The only signatories are those who would benefit. (Yellow is consideration, but I doubt PA and MI will pass it considering what just happend)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
You can't simultaneously say that the tyranny of the majority is the threat and have a system where people's votes aren't with the same amount. The EC, if it has fair population representation, is basically a formality and the result would be the same. Except that now, in a winner-take-all system, 7% of the time the candidate who got fewer votes has won. Instead of preventing disenfranchising the few rural people we disenfranchise everyone whose vote is worth less than the swing states' votes. 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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Trump beat Hillary within the boundaries of the current game. There's nothing to say he wouldn't have done it under a different system too. Don't get too tied up in structural arguments instead of dealing with Hillary and her team being bad, imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Trump beat Hillary within the boundaries of the current game. It Has Been Decided via Structuralism that The Only Way to Do Something is Riot Man Musk has issued a correction as of 11:27 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:You can't simultaneously say that the tyranny of the majority is the threat and have a system where people's votes aren't with the same amount. The EC, if it has fair population representation, is basically a formality and the result would be the same. Except that now, in a winner-take-all system, 7% of the time the candidate who got fewer votes has won. Instead of preventing disenfranchising the few rural people we disenfranchise everyone whose vote is worth less than the swing states' votes. Do you actually watch any sports oooor. Anyway the swing states aren't set in stone dude. They change over time and it's precisely because there isn't a clear majority in those states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Do you actually watch any sports oooor. Anyway the swing states aren't set in stone dude. They change over time and it's precisely because there isn't a clear majority in those states. I don't know what sports you're watching dudebro, but when the goal of the game is to score the most points, the team with the most points wins and doesn't lose. Having the power shift to other states doesn't mean the system is working. In fact I'd say it means it's even more busted than you think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:I don't know what sports you're watching dudebro, but when the goal of the game is to score the most points, the team with the most points wins and doesn't lose. "WHAT THE gently caress!!!! WE SCORED THE MOST DROP GOALS THOUGH!!!!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:*Clinton loses 31-17 in a rugby league game* So the goal of Rugby is to secure drop goals? I don't know, I only watch sports from God's Country™
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Teikanmi posted:So the goal of Rugby is to secure drop goals? I don't know, I only watch sports from God's Country™ To make it an American Football analogy, Clinton supporters who think she would have definitely won if electoral college was replaced with the popular vote is like Baltimore Ravens fans saying that if field goals were worth 200 points, they would definitely win the next season. Only if you think the other teams couldn't step their kicking game up a bit, boys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:No, like the American election, the goal is to secure the most points. Probably more applicable to it being claimed that what's really important is who gains more yardage, rather than who scores more points. The democrats abandoned everything but the Northeast and populous parts of the West Coast. Instead of trying to change the rules so only those areas count they should just stop being dogshit to anyone not in those areas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Teikanmi posted:You can't simultaneously say that the tyranny of the majority is the threat and have a system where people's votes aren't with the same amount. The EC, if it has fair population representation, is basically a formality and the result would be the same. Except that now, in a winner-take-all system, 7% of the time the candidate who got fewer votes has won. Instead of preventing disenfranchising the few rural people we disenfranchise everyone whose vote is worth less than the swing states' votes. You have it backwards. The relative disenfranchisement of high population state voters is to curb the possibility of the tyranny of the majority. Not that there is a one even though there is disenfranchisement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:17
|
|
