Crysta Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 he asked them to reflect on their misgivings about clinton and see if they were in any way just a fear of the unfamiliar; it was in no way an insinuation or a blanket statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 source? because my bullshit alarm is going off and my soapbox alarm is blaring. i live in california and worked a full eight hour shift that day and still managed to get out to vote. if we do get rid of the electoral college people better start actually voting and stop with the "well everyone else is going to vote one way so why should I even bother lol" mentality asap. :) and yes that is a passive-aggressive emoji Then urban cities make up policies for the rest of the country without the electoral college. At least this way, a state like Nebraska or Arkansas can in theory have some say. I find it funny that you're complaining about the election system only after the election because it was the result that you didn't want. I've always thought that it was much better in the US than it is here in Israel (which has allowed Bibi to stay in power for 9 freaking years due to creating coalitions). Serious question. If Trump lost the electoral college but won the popular vote, would you be saying that he should be President? I personally don't think you would. I know that I wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Then urban cities make up policies for the rest of the country without the electoral college. At least this way, a state like Nebraska or Arkansas can in theory have some say. That's the thing basically. The electoral college has it's problems, but without them the rural areas won't be getting much say in politics. To be honest, I'd say that the problem lies with 'First Past the Polls' and even Plurality Voting in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Are we comparing democratic systems? Cause I have some juicy trivia. In the last Irish election the people unintentionally voted to have anarchy. None of the parties had high support or were willing to cooperate with each other so for a few months we effectively had no government in power. Surprisingly this changed very little in regards to how the country was run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Serious question. If Trump lost the electoral college but won the popular vote, would you be saying that he should be President? I personally don't think you would. I know that I wouldn't.I would on principle - because I'm salty about Gore to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 What you think I would do would matter more if you comprehended that I was complaining about people not voting, not about the system itself. You bolded it and you still missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I would on principle - because I'm salty about Gore to this day. You're the first person who has actually said yes to that question. Everyone else has ignored the hypocrisy in their opinions. If you look at the map as per US district, you'll see that it was almost entirely red with only city areas being blue. Removing the electoral college would cut out those people's voices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 No, but what Crysta said is significantly more relevant. Electoral college has led to exactly what she was describing - people becoming complacent and not voting. You think someone in California, Maryland, or Pennsylvania give a shit? No! Because their states tend to always go blue, so people stay at home. And looks like it fucked us with Pennsylvania, even though MD and CA were significantly in Hillary's favor. If you look at the map as per US district, you'll see that it was almost entirely red with only city areas being blue. Removing the electoral college would cut out those people's voices.How would it? That burden lies entirely on their local and state governments - but at the same time, those "red" areas are less densely populated by a wide margin. You may as well point to the blue parts of the country as the extremely densely populated. Why should one person in a rural district's vote matter more than one person that lives in the city? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 You're the first person who has actually said yes to that question. Everyone else has ignored the hypocrisy in their opinions. Pretty sure I voiced some misgivings about the american electoral college way before the election, but I sure as hell won't go through 100 pages to find it. I generally don't like that it's a common outcome that the candidate with fewer votes is elected for office. But sure, keep painting the broad strokes. If you look at the map as per US district, you'll see that it was almost entirely red with only city areas being blue. Removing the electoral college would cut out those people's voices. But the current system also means that the votes of many people don't fucking matter. I'll give Eclipse and Hawaii as an example - it was completely irrelevant who she would vote for, except maybe to make A Statement. It's even evident in the candidates' strategy: They completely focus on the swing states, not really caring about the states they'll win/lose in anyway. I don't think that's a good thing, and that is independent of Trump's victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 How would it? That burden lies entirely on their local and state governments - but at the same time, those "red" areas are less densely populated by a wide margin. You may as well point to the blue parts of the country as the extremely densely populated. Why should one person in a rural district's vote matter more than one person that lives in the city? It doesn't. That's why California is worth 55 electoral votes (20% of the electoral votes needed to win presidency) while a state like Kansas is worth 6 votes (2% of the electoral votes). archives.gov states that the electoral votes are distributed based on the census. It quite literally is the best system available since every state is worth its weight in votes. I don't get the argument against the electoral college at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) Because two presidents in the past 20 years won the popular vote despite losing to the electoral college. If the more popular candidate isn't the leader, then it's not a true democracy. This is kind of close to Simpson's Paradox, though it's not a 1:1 correspondence. It doesn't. That's why California is worth 55 electoral votes (20% of the electoral votes needed to win presidency) while a state like Kansas is worth 6 votes (2% of the electoral votes). If you look at the map as per US district, you'll see that it was almost entirely red with only city areas being blue. Removing the electoral college would cut out those people's voices. If it doesn't count for more, then how does it remove their voices? archives.gov states that the electoral votes are distributed based on the census. It quite literally is the best system available since every state is worth its weight in votes. I don't get the argument against the electoral college at all.This is not correct. 438 of the votes are based on the census. Edited November 10, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) The argument against it is because it's not 1 person = 1 vote. In a country which attempts to suggest that every vote should matter, this doesn't add up, because there are clearly more people who want Clinton as president and yet that isn't going to happen. It's not hard to understand, but here's my actual opinion on it instead of the one you imagined: I don't care for changing the goal posts during or after the game, and I would not look forward to the weeks and weeks of legal challenges and political squabbling that would go on if the result was razor thin. A peaceful transition is important. It doesn't mean I don't understand the frustration, though. I would fully expect Trump to vent the same sentiments: in fact, he has before. If you wouldn't join him then I guess... good for you? I don't really care. EDIT: also you should vote regardless of whether or not the electoral college stays because it's asinine to make others carry the responsibility of carrying your preferred candidate when you clearly have a vocal stake in the result Edited November 10, 2016 by Crysta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 OK, to clarify: I do not consider the election to be illegitimate. The rules were how they were and in this particular case they favoured Trump. I just think that they should be changed for future elections as soon as possible, no matter who would gain by that change. (and because I don't intend to bash the American democray as a whole by this, here's an interesting fact about the German electoral system: When electing a new parliament, we have two votes, one for a specific candidate from our region, one for a whole party, the latter being the more important one by far. However, because of how those two votes work, it's a very possible scenario that a party can actually _lose_ seats in parliament by getting additional votes (and vice versa). As far as I can tell, this generally favours the big parties, so even though the constitutional court has pointed out the problem, the legislative hasn't exactly been thrilled about fixing it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punished Dayni Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Are we comparing democratic systems? Cause I have some juicy trivia. In the last Irish election the people unintentionally voted to have anarchy. None of the parties had high support or were willing to cooperate with each other so for a few months we effectively had no government in power. Surprisingly this changed very little in regards to how the country was run. ....I'm remembering this a little differently. The issue was that the two largest parties essentially tried to find a way to make a government without the third largest party (For oh so many reasons that are unrelated to policy) or each other (Again, so many reasons that have little to do with policy) while the media blared on until the two parties formed a not-coalition (It might as well be in practice), and neither side has gained enough momentum since to try and push for a government of its own. Though yes, the country didn't suddenly turn into a bonfire after the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Because two presidents in the past 20 years won the popular vote despite losing to the electoral college. If the more popular candidate isn't the leader, then it's not a true democracy. This is kind of close to Simpson's Paradox, though it's not a 1:1 correspondence. If it doesn't count for more, then how does it remove their voices? This is not correct. 438 of the votes are based on the census. I want a source for the second point. As for the removal of the electoral college, it means that higher population centers have much more of a say than rural areas. If the vast majority of a city (with a pop of 1 million) votes one way, then the entirety of the rural area is discounted if their pop totals up to about 100,000. The cities would dictate the policies in its entirety. Here's a good way to explain it. States like ND, SD and Wyoming don't have big cities in them. Without the electoral college (or even a riding system), their votes quite literally count for nothing because the 8.5 million people in NYC alone out-number them. I don't see that as a fair system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) But it's not cities and villages voting collectively. With the current electoral college, many individual votes are completely meaningless (again: see Eclipse voting for 3rd party because she could be sure beforehand that Clinton would take Hawaii), even if the overall vote is very close. And personally, I find that to be a bigger issue. Edited November 10, 2016 by ping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 But it's not cities and villages voting collectively. With the current electoral college, many individual votes are completely meaningless (again: see Eclipse voting for 3rd party because she could be sure beforehand that Clinton would take Hawaii), even if the overall vote is very close. And personally, I find that to be a bigger issue. It seems to me that you have more of a problem with democracy itself than the electoral college. You're basically saying that the individual person's vote is inconsequential to the majority. If that's not your point, feel free to correct me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) Are we talking true democracy, as in everyone gets one vote and whoever has the most at the end of the day wins? Because that's not the current system. EDIT: it's kind of dumb because bigger states have a bigger vote yield anyway, it's just more generalized so the votes in the small states matter more. has someone won by, say, clenching fucking montana? Edited November 10, 2016 by Crysta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Are we talking true democracy, as in everyone gets one vote and whoever has the most at the end of the day wins? Because that's not the current system. Yeah, that's my point. I don't see it as a problem that 1 vote out of a few millions isn't much. That I see as mathematics. But the current system not only makes individual votes more or less valuable by default, but it also creates artificial situations in which a few votes for or against one side don't matter, even if they would decide the majority nationwide. Again with the Eclipse example: She stated that her vote wouldn't make a difference because Hawaii is strictly voting Democrats. That wouldn't have been the case if the president would just be elected by national majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Yeah, that's my point. I don't see it as a problem that 1 vote out of a few millions isn't much. That I see as mathematics. But the current system not only makes individual votes more or less valuable by default, but it also creates artificial situations in which a few votes for or against one side don't matter, even if they would decide the majority nationwide. Again with the Eclipse example: She stated that her vote wouldn't make a difference because Hawaii is strictly voting Democrats. That wouldn't have been the case if the president would just be elected by national majority. Great. So I'll just campaign in the 50 biggest cities in the country and nothing else. That should give me majority of the people. Top 10 cities account for almost 10% of the country's population alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Great. So I'll just campaign in the 10 swing states and nothing else. That should give me the majority of the electors. The other states won't change their vote anyway, so why bother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJWalker Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I'm no American. But how bad of a candidate do you have to be to lose to Trump? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Great. So I'll just campaign in the 10 swing states and nothing else. That should give me the majority of the electors. The other states won't change their vote anyway, so why bother? And if they do? You're making the assumption that they won't change their votes. It's a good assumption based on precedence but it's not certain. In the meantime, campaigning in the top 50 cities means that even if everyone else votes against me and only those 50 cities vote for me, I win due to numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I'm no American. But how bad of a candidate do you have to be to lose to Trump? Pretty bad, especially considering the major anti-establishment support in the election on top of all the DNC's dickery during the primaries. They have no-one to blame but themselves quite frankly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 So when was the last time a candidate valued all states equally during campaigning? Sorry, but I find a fair election system (i.e. every vote has the same value) more important than a vague hope that maybe some day the numbers in {insert sure state} are close enough for the candidates to care. Because that's what you're banking on for the current system to be better (in this regard) instead of just moving the problem to a different spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.