General US Politics

[Life]

@life, again, point out evidence for your claims that i'm authoritarian when it suits me. unless of course you admit you were lying.

I never called you a PC Authoritarian. I called you a PC Liberal. But Hylian summed it up perfectly.

As for faithless electors, there were more that tried to not vote for Hillary. I find that... ironic.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer

[Phoenix Wright]

Gerrymandering is a separate issue and has no effect on the EC, since all the state's votes go toward one state total, regardless of congressional distract. Only the House of Representatives is affected by Gerrymandering.

true sorry. i was mistaken, as cyborgzeta went into more detail on.

I never called you a PC Authoritarian. I called you a PC Liberal.

i know, which you are wrong on. and no he absolutely did not.

nice cop-out though, as per usual for you.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

Washington already has laws against faithless electors, but since they accepted the faithless votes, I presume the penalty there is just a $1,000 fine.

In Colorado and Minnesota, the votes were thrown out and the electors replaced with someone who would vote for the winner. Maine had the faithless vote thrown out, and the elector changed his vote to Clinton in the next one.

As for Texas, the current governor mentioned just after the vote that he's already filed a bill to make electors' commitments binding and punish faithless ones.

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/810979644967124992

The $1000 fine isn't really going to stop anybody. That's a quarter of the bill I got for birthing Est. Voiding faithless electors or just making the votes automatic are the only real solution, if you want to keep the EC.

The Electoral College gives us the worst of both worlds really. Even the proponents of the Electoral College don't believe we should be beholden to a mercurial oligarchy that can change the election on a whim.

[Phoenix Wright]

The $1000 fine isn't really going to stop anybody. That's a quarter of the bill I got for birthing Est. Voiding faithless electors or just making the votes automatic are the only real solution, if you want to keep the EC.

The Electoral College gives us the worst of both worlds really. Even the proponents of the Electoral College don't believe we should be beholden to a mercurial oligarchy that can change the election on a whim.

did you change your opinion on the ec recently? i vaguely recall you being in support of it.

[Rezzy]

did you change your opinion on the ec recently? i vaguely recall you being in support of it.

My opinion is one more of tenuous support for it. My ideal system would be a preferential ranked voting system, but I don't think the USA would go for that. Both a straight popular vote and the EC have a problem with plurality winners, but at least the EC means that a president can't get their plurality from just a couple states.

The pros of the EC are it makes the winner need enough support from across the whole country, and it limits voter fraud since it would be limited to one state, since padding a total in one city isn't going to affect anything outside its own state and spare us from the nightmare that would be a nation-wide recount.

The major con is the fact that voters can go against the will of their state's voters. The people don't even know who the electors are, so they don't really have a mandate to vote as they please. Washington voters did not vote for Colin Powell, and Texan voters did not vote for Kasich or Ron Paul. I would have preferred any of those guys over Trump, but that was not the will of the people in those states. If someone made me an elector, it would be disingenuous for me to go and vote for Gary Johnson, even if I thought he would be a better president than Trump.

Short term: I would have loved for the EC to revolt and make Ron Paul or Colin Powell our next president, but it would be disastrous and throw us into a constitutional crisis.

[Life]

So I was looking at something interesting regarding the electoral college and the popular vote.

​Hillary Clinton's vote margin in California alone is greater than the vote margin in the popular vote. Cutting out the California voting margin (but giving the state still to Clinton) would mean that outside of California, Trump barely won the popular vote.

​Yep, electoral college did its job well. It quite literally prevented California from holding all of the power by simply existing.

[Phoenix Wright]

when you (or anyone else) has the time, tell me your thoughts on this: http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/im-a-coastal-elite-from-the-midwest-the-real-bubble-is-rural-america

my biggest issue with the ec is that it makes my vote as a californian worthless, for no other reason except that i'm in a super-populated state. it would make my vote as a new yorker, or even as a texan near worthless too.

unlike congress, there is no check or balance on this. my vote is simply worth less and that is the way it is. i think the senate has lots and lots of problems, but it's at least trying to confront the issue of tyrannical majorities. the ec exists so as to create a tyrannical minority. that is crazy for democracy.

So I was looking at something interesting regarding the electoral college and the popular vote.

​Hillary Clinton's vote margin in California alone is greater than the vote margin in the popular vote. Cutting out the California voting margin (but giving the state still to Clinton) would mean that outside of California, Trump barely won the popular vote.

​Yep, electoral college did its job well. It quite literally prevented California from holding all of the power by simply existing.

um, california holds a pretty considerable percentage of the nation's population. i would see no problem with this. i would rather california votes matter (considering we're pretty fucking important to the union) than not matter at all. that is just stupid.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

when you (or anyone else) has the time, tell me your thoughts on this: http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/im-a-coastal-elite-from-the-midwest-the-real-bubble-is-rural-america

my biggest issue with the ec is that it makes my vote as a californian worthless, for no other reason except that i'm in a super-populated state. it would make my vote as a new yorker, or even as a texan near worthless too.

unlike congress, there is no check or balance on this. my vote is simply worth less and that is the way it is. i think the senate has lots and lots of problems, but it's at least trying to confront the issue of tyrannical majorities. the ec exists so as to create a tyrannical minority. that is crazy for democracy.

um, california holds a pretty considerable percentage of the nation's population. i would see no problem with this. i would rather california votes matter (considering we're pretty fucking important to the union) than not matter at all. that is just stupid.

I'm from rural Illinois, but I've also lived in Chicago and St. Louis as well as Indianapolis and Cleveland for brief periods. I spent my teenage and early 20s as a closeted lesbian. It's not so much just rural vs urban, but also the dozens or so regions that make up America. A president can't win with just coastal states, but they can't win with just the Midwest either. They need to get support from a majority of the regions to have a big enough chunk of states to win.

The EC is basically the senate and house hybridized as the compromise in choosing the president. It favors small states, but states like California still get a significant say in the election. If a candidate failed to appeal to California, Texas, New York, or Florida, they'd have a very hard time winning, but those states also have very different demographics.

Big states could always split into multiple states to give their populations more say per capita in the EC.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm from rural Illinois, but I've also lived in Chicago and St. Louis as well as Indianapolis and Cleveland for brief periods. I spent my teenage and early 20s as a closeted lesbian. It's not so much just rural vs urban, but also the dozens or so regions that make up America. A president can't win with just coastal states, but they can't win with just the Midwest either. They need to get support from a majority of the regions to have a big enough chunk of states to win.

The EC is basically the senate and house hybridized as the compromise in choosing the president. It favors small states, but states like California still get a significant say in the election. If a candidate failed to appeal to California, Texas, New York, or Florida, they'd have a very hard time winning, but those states also have very different demographics.

Big states could always split into multiple states to give their populations more say per capita in the EC.

achieving this would be more difficult than abolishing the ec, probably.

i think the argument of the article was more that those sheltered people in the midwest and south need to open their eyes to the rest of the world a bit more, opposite to what was being said on election night (that the coasts lived in a bubble).

[Sunwoo]

um, california holds a pretty considerable percentage of the nation's population. i would see no problem with this. i would rather california votes matter (considering we're pretty fucking important to the union) than not matter at all. that is just stupid.

​Yeah, what is it with people acting like California's popular votes shouldn't matter just because it has a greater population than the rest of the states? I can tell we're not wanted. Maybe we should secede.

P.S. I'm absolutely not serious about seceding. I'll make fun of any state, even my own, if they talk seriously about wanting to secede because they're not happy that things didn't go their way. But sometimes I get the feeling that we're not wanted in the U.S. Or, at the very least, you guys don't want us to have a say in politics and stuff but you want the things that we can give the Union. Doesn't sound fair to me.

[Time the Crestfallen]

i think the argument of the article was more that those sheltered people in the midwest and south need to open their eyes to the rest of the world a bit more, opposite to what was being said on election night (that the coasts lived in a bubble).

I don't see why the rural areas living in a bubble means that the coast aren't also living in a bubble and vice versa. If mutual obstinence is a problem, I don't see how singling out one group is helpful.

[Sunwoo]

I don't see why the rural areas living in a bubble means that the coast aren't also living in a bubble and vice versa. If mutual obstinence is a problem, I don't see how singling out one group is helpful.

The truth of the matter is that America as a whole is living in a fucking bubble. America has always been living in a fucking bubble, actually, and I don't think that's changing any time soon.

[CyborgZeta]

Rather than a bubble, I think both sides (coastal/heartland or urban/rural) are aware they lead different lives; they just don't care. They don't like each other.

Why should someone in Seattle or NYC care about what they view as some hillbilly in Tennessee or a farmer in North Dakota? Likewise, why should those people care about someone in San Francisco?

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

Also, I've never heard of two people from the same party running against each other on a ballot before. I knew California was a one-party state, but not to that extent.

[Rezzy]

achieving this would be more difficult than abolishing the ec, probably.

i think the argument of the article was more that those sheltered people in the midwest and south need to open their eyes to the rest of the world a bit more, opposite to what was being said on election night (that the coasts lived in a bubble).

To your first statement, probably, but a lot of the bigger states suffer from the same disconnect between regions that the country at large has. I've seen lots of people semi-joke about kicking Chicago out of Illinois, since downstate Illinois shares more with its neighboring states than it does with Chicago.

I think it goes both ways. I've only lived in the Midwest, but urban vs rural life is night and day. In Chicago, I got a bit of flak for being a country bumpkin for my accent (I didn't think I had one) among other things.

Tangential, but I do love having grown up out in the country. I loved seeing the cows across the road, the fields of corn (or soybeans) north and south of our house. You could actually see the stars at night and hear the coyotes howling. The springs and summers were green and the falls were vivid. And the smells were natural. I want that for my kids. Living in Chicago, all I saw from my window was concrete.

[eclipse]

when you (or anyone else) has the time, tell me your thoughts on this: http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/im-a-coastal-elite-from-the-midwest-the-real-bubble-is-rural-america

Does he have a good point? Absolutely. I saw some neat little gems such as this:

We must start asking all Americans to be their better selves. We must all understand that America is a melting pot and that none of us has a more authentic American experience.

and this:

I have friends and acquaintances who are Trump supporters. They genuinely do not understand todays shock, particularly from minorities. These Trump supporters do not understand that many minorities believe the people who voted for Trump endorse his racism and bigotry that those voters care more about sending a message to the political establishment than they do about the rights and welfare of human beings.

makes this point earlier:

We, as a culture, have to stop infantilizing and deifying rural and white working-class Americans. Their experience is not more of a real American experience than anyone elses, but when we say that it is, we give people a pass from seeing and understanding more of their country. More Americans need to see more of the United States. They need to shake hands with a Muslim, or talk soccer with a middle aged lesbian, or attend a lecture by a female business executive.

and then falls flat on his face with this:

This doesnt mean that coastal Americans cant empathize more with their fellow Americans and try to find solutions to these problems (nor does it mean that there arent many struggling working-class people in coastal states). And it certainly doesnt mean coastal Americans havent contributed to this divisiveness.

That final quote implies that the people in the Midwest can't find their own solutions, which runs counter to what he said earlier. I think some serious talks with the rural communities should be in order, since there seems to be a serious cultural divide between rural and urban. In other words, future presidential candidates should make rural communities a part of their campaign trail, because they're just as much a part of America as the people living in New York City.

[Rezzy]

Does he have a good point? Absolutely. I saw some neat little gems such as this:

and this:

makes this point earlier:

and then falls flat on his face with this:

That final quote implies that the people in the Midwest can't find their own solutions, which runs counter to what he said earlier. I think some serious talks with the rural communities should be in order, since there seems to be a serious cultural divide between rural and urban. In other words, future presidential candidates should make rural communities a part of their campaign trail, because they're just as much a part of America as the people living in New York City.

Out of curiosity, is anyone else here from a rural area, or am I the only one?

[Res]

As he already kinda has.http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-acknowledges-climate-change-at-his-irish-golf-course/also i love how america bombs, starts multiple wars, funds different groups of radical jihadists and fully destabilises the middle east and then wonders why there are so many radicals against the west, refugees trying to escape the region into europe, and decides to blame those refugees and the EU

Yes; although of course the U.S. is not the only party at fault; the U.K. in particular has spent over a hundred years fucking up the Middle East.

But it's an important point not made often enough that the U.S. grew a lot of the terrorists. Not only that, but Hollywood then sells the story of the little man rising up against the big evil empire over and over - blissfully unaware that a lot of people outside the U.S. see themselves as the heroes in a world in which the big evil empire is the U.S.

um, california holds a pretty considerable percentage of the nation's population. i would see no problem with this.

Yeah; basically people in California are currently being punished merely for residing in California. We're not a homogenous state with a hive mind. We're as varied here as anywhere else.

But I often get a very 'fuck California' vibe.

The truth of the matter is that America as a whole is living in a fucking bubble. America has always been living in a fucking bubble, actually, and I don't think that's changing any time soon.

Also true!

Eggclipse basically wrote exactly what I would've said about that article! I really like the paragraphs she highlighted, especially with regards to the 'real american' bit and the way a lot of minority groups are feeling right now.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Res

[Life]

Yeah; basically people in California are currently being punished merely for residing in California. We're not a homogenous state with a hive mind. We're as varied here as anywhere else.

But I often get a very 'fuck California' vibe.

I've been to Cali twice (twice to LA and once to San Fran). Hate LA, San Fran was actually pretty great aside from the "don't go too far in this direction or you might as well be in South Side Chicago" explanation I got from the hostel I was staying at.

​But yeah, the "fuck California" opinion really comes from Americans outside of California. I like to pretend to be full Israeli with the harsh accent and that's when Americans tell me that Cali is a cesspool and nothing more.

[Rezzy]

It looks like Hawaii had a faithless elector, too. Eclipse, what did you do?

[Lord Raven]

Out of curiosity, is anyone else here from a rural area, or am I the only one?

Bel Air, MD has a bunch of rural places so I did go to school (elementary, middle, and a year of high school) with a bunch of people whose parents were involved in those kinds of jobs. One of my best friends in college also grew up in a rural part of Howard County, MD. I wouldn't say I've had a rural upbringing, though, since my dad worked in a city and I always had to be there for a variety of reasons. Why do you ask?

(fyi I hated it there)

[Rezzy]

Bel Air, MD has a bunch of rural places so I did go to school (elementary, middle, and a year of high school) with a bunch of people whose parents were involved in those kinds of jobs. One of my best friends in college also grew up in a rural part of Howard County, MD. I wouldn't say I've had a rural upbringing, though, since my dad worked in a city and I always had to be there for a variety of reasons. Why do you ask?(fyi I hated it there)

Just curious, since the urban vs rural discussion came up, I thought it would be nice to have people from both sides, and I'm not the lone voice in the wilderness.

[eclipse]

It looks like Hawaii had a faithless elector, too. Eclipse, what did you do?

What's the source for this?

[Rezzy]

What's the source for this?

Hawaii News Now and Nate Silver. I can't link on mobile.

[UNLEASH IT]

Just curious, since the urban vs rural discussion came up, I thought it would be nice to have people from both sides, and I'm not the lone voice in the wilderness.

When you say that, do you mean it in a literal or figurative sense? haha

Edited December 20, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[eclipse]

Hawaii News Now and Nate Silver. I can't link on mobile.

Found it.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Hopefully, the lawmakers won't bother making some law or other regarding electors as a kneejerk reaction.