General US Politics

[Radiant head]

bureaucratization is what libertarianism/liberalism looks like in practice. history has proven that market reforms that are intended to reduce red tape and government end up doing the opposite. for example, banking deregulation actually just meant re-regulation, only with banking lobbyists actually pushing for it instead of the government itself, and they've become even more complicated and bureaucratic. the state and private sector aren't competing things, one is designed to support the other.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Radiant head

[Rezzy]

bureaucratization is what libertarianism/liberalism looks like in practice. history has proven that market reforms that are intended to reduce red tape and government end up doing the opposite. for example, banking deregulation actually just meant re-regulation, only with banking lobbyists actually pushing for it instead of the government itself, and they've become even more complicated and bureaucratic. the state and private sector aren't competing things, one is designed to support the other.

Lobbyists are often the problem. Established corporations push onerous regulations that they can afford, but new companies cannot, getting rid of competition before it can even get started. It's the thing that says a hair stylist needs a license to trim your bangs, or an 8 year old is forbidden from selling lemonade on the street corner. Corporations and government colluding with each other is cronyism. The rich essentially bribe the politicians to pass laws that favor them and block up-and-comers.

[Radiant head]

yeah, but i'm skeptical of the idea that there's some kind of natural, perfect free market that doesn't have "cronyism," it just seems like very utopian thinking.

[Rezzy]

yeah, but i'm skeptical of the idea that there's some kind of natural, perfect free market that doesn't have "cronyism," it just seems like very utopian thinking.

Voting out politicians that implement cronyism is a start.

[eclipse]

Voting out politicians that implement cronyism is a start.

Good luck with that.

No, it's not just sarcasm. To truly get rid of the corruption you speak of, a lot of powerful people will have do things directly against their self-interest (like pay a LOT in taxes, for something that may not be a direct benefit).

[Augestein]

I don't think that's actually possible to eliminate such a thing. In addition to what Eggclipse said, there's also the assumption that people always intentionally do things that only benefit themselves and friends and not simply having a lack of empathy. I don't think that's true, and think that it's simply that a lot of people don't think of the ramifications of their actions. So even if you did vote out the politicians that are currently there, the only thing that will end up happening is that you'll get another person that works for self-interests.

[Excellen Browning]

I wouldn't say lobbying or professional lobbyists are truly the problem. Ultimately they only find listeners in those willing to listen to them (and after that, willing to push their agenda). And it's of course a natural right of yours to try and make your case heard by politicians. That is even a cornerstone of the political process.

What Im most surprised about is what seems to be the willingness of the American audience to vote these people into congress or the presidency.

[Radiant head]

well it doesn't help that voters usually are forced to choose between a republican and democrat who are both beholden to special interests.

honestly, solving these problems would require really deep systemic changes.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Radiant head

[Sunwoo]

(I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but) I've been thinking about the electoral college lately, and I think it's a really dumb system.

Politicians seem to always be trying to encourage young people to come out and vote, especially during presidential election years, and I was going to vote this year. Then I remembered that I live in a state that always goes Democratic and doesn't need my vote to go Democratic. And lo and behold, it did go blue this year. My vote literally does not matter. So if I'm confident that my state is going in a direction that I want it to go, then what is the point? Does my vote really matter? Individually, it sure feels like it doesn't.

Of course, it's not always guaranteed that your state is going to go in a certain direction because it always has. This year's election proved that at least. So isn't it important that you vote? Well, if I was concerned that my state was going to flip, or if I saw signs indicating a flip, then I would vote. But there's still yet another problem: the electoral college has it so that you win "states", not votes. So anyone who voted for the party that didn't win the state essentially "wasted" their votes. Their votes don't matter. They may as well never have been made. What an amazing motivating factor to get out and vote.

Earlier in July, Shin and I (along with various other people in our Skype group) were watching the results of the Brexit vote, and I was surprised that every single vote counted. And you'd think it shouldn't be a surprise, but I was surprised. Even if "stay" or "leave" won by a landslide in a certain district, the people who voted for the option that didn't "win" in that district still had their votes count. If the decision came by 51-49, or even closer, it wasn't as if the one with slightly more votes overrode the other one and made the other side's votes null. So in that case, it really did feel as if every vote did count.

Why do we even have the electoral college anymore? Is it because of "tradition", which isn't really even that good of an excuse because not all traditions are good? I'm pretty lucky to live in a state that has been voting in a direction I agree with since before I was born, and even I feel frustrated because I feel that my vote doesn't count. Imagine how much more frustrating it is for people who live in states that never go in the direction they agree with, because the electoral college system means their votes basically don't count. Imagine how frustrating it is if your state goes in a certain direction even if the numbers were close, not even a percent difference. If you didn't vote for the party that "won", your vote means nothing.

And no, this isn't post-election results salt. I've been thinking about this since the Brexit, since my own lack of motivation to vote this year, and amidst other people wondering what the electoral college is even good for.

[Life]

The electoral college exists to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

[Skynstein]

There's no answer that satisfies everyone. If the USA election had been decided on majority vote, there would still be a political rift much akin to what happened in Brazil and Venezuela after their latest presidential elections, and look where it has led them (presidential impeachment in the former and pure chaos in the latter). Realistically speaking, Clinton's win in majority vote was much narrower than Trump's win in the electoral college.

[CyborgZeta]

I live in flyover country, so I'm thankful for the Electoral College because it gives my region a voice.

Considering Hillary didn't take the lead in the popular vote until more votes started being counted in California and New York, I'm even more thankful. I do not like the idea of California and New York City deciding national policy.

[Life]

I live in flyover country, so I'm thankful for the Electoral College because it gives my region a voice.

Considering Hillary didn't take the lead in the popular vote until more votes started being counted in California and New York, I'm even more thankful. I do not like the idea of California and New York City deciding national policy.

This, this and this.

True democracy is mob rule. As I stated above, the electoral college eliminates the tyranny of the majority.

Imagine if California voted one way and New York the other. You wouldn't say that the electoral college is silly.

[Nobody]

Right now, thought, voters in California, New York and Texas have no power in presidential elections.

Also, the electoral college does not make politicians have to campaign for rural voters or small states. No presidential candidate ever will go campaign on Wyoming or Idaho, because, not only these states are small, they're also non competitive. The electoral college forces the candidates to seek states where the votes will be close, regardless of them being being rural or urban, small or big. Few small states receive attention from the candidates due to the electoral college. Like, NH receives attention because it can swing either way, not because it's small.

The electoral college is only a thing in the USA and no where else because of a reason; it doesn't not make much sense. I mean, it's still there because of a tradition.

All in all, the electoral college doesn't make the rural or the small state vote more valuable by much, they only make the swing state vote more valuable, regardless of its size or demographics.

I mean, Trump's victory was 100% legitimate, he won following the system's rules and that's it. The fact that these rules are weird, make no sense, aren't used anywhere else and make the vote of 80% of the country meaningless isn't his fault, as much as I disliked his victory. If the electoral college was replaced, then it'd only take effect in subsequent elections, whose rules would then be established. There'd probably need to be a run off if neither candidate got over 50% of the valid votes or something

Edited November 26, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Alertcircuit]

(I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but) I've been thinking about the electoral college lately, and I think it's a really dumb system.

Politicians seem to always be trying to encourage young people to come out and vote, especially during presidential election years, and I was going to vote this year. Then I remembered that I live in a state that always goes Democratic and doesn't need my vote to go Democratic. And lo and behold, it did go blue this year. My vote literally does not matter. So if I'm confident that my state is going in a direction that I want it to go, then what is the point? Does my vote really matter? Individually, it sure feels like it doesn't.

I'm sure Dems in Michigan that stayed home thought the same thing. Votes aren't useless.

But, a way to potentially "fix" the electoral college would be to keep the point system that inflates worth of small states, but eliminate the winner-takes-all system in exchange for something proportional. Plus that way every vote actually does matter. Haven't done the math but that's just a suggestion.

[CyborgZeta]

The Electoral College makes sense when you consider that the US was designed as a federation of states. Rather than deciding simply by a majority of the population, it's decided by popular vote on a state-by-state level.

Trump did not win the national popular vote, but he won a majority of states.

http://imgur.com/j2XTzHS

Half the population lives in these counties. Yes, I know "land can't vote", but people do live outside of those areas. They deserve to have their voices heard, and deciding by national popular vote would mean their opinions don't matter.

People living in North (or South) Dakota, Montana, Maine, Nebraska or Iowa are not beneath you. The Electoral College may not be perfect, but it gives those people a voice through their state. If an election was close enough to be decided by just 3 electoral votes, then you bet a state like Montana would matter. New Hampshire only has 4 electoral votes, and even it was considered important enough to campaign there by both parties.

[Nobody]

People living in North (or South) Dakota, Montana, Maine, Nebraska or Iowa are not beneath you. The Electoral College may not be perfect, but it gives those people a voice through their state. If an election was close enough to be decided by just 3 electoral votes, then you bet a state like Montana would matter. New Hampshire only has 4 electoral votes, and even it was considered important enough to campaign there by both parties.

How does it give these people a voice, when the politicians know for sure who they're going to vote for?

No one campaigns in Montana, the Dakotas, Vermont, Wyoming, Idaho, and the many small states that always vote the same way. Has a presidential candidate ever spent significant time in those?

They campaign in NH, Iowa and maybe Maine because they can flip, not because they're small. The electoral college does not give "small states" more power. Wyoming is the most republican state in the US, and no one gives a fuck about campaigning in there regardless of its size because it will always vote the same way.

This is actually made explicit by Nebraska in itself. No one campaigns in its two districts that always go republican. The only district that receives significant campaigning is the one that can go either way, which happens to be urban.

What I mean to say is that the "the electoral college gives more power to small states" thing is bullocks. It does not give them more power. Montana, Wyoming and all the small states that are not swing states get no power from it.

It gives power to states that can swing either way, regardless of the size. It gives power to NH, but it also gives power to huge Florida and Ohio.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Life]

How does it give these people a voice, when the politicians know for sure who they're going to vote for?

No one campaigns in Montana, the Dakotas, Vermont, Wyoming, Idaho, and the plentora of small states that always vote the same way. Has a presidential candidate ever spent significant time in those?

They campaign in NH, Iowa and maybe Maine because they can flip, not because they're small. The electoral college does not give "small states" more power. Wyoming is the most republican state in the US, and no one gives a fuck about campaign on there regardless of its size because it will always vote the same way.

This is actually made explicit by Nebraska in itself. No one campaigns in its two districts that always go republican. The only district that receives significant campaigning is the one that can go either way, which happens to be urban.

What I mean to say is that the "the electoral college gives more power to small states" thing is bullocks. It does not give them more power. Montana, Wyoming and all the small states that are not swing states get no power from it.

It gives power to states that can swing either way, regardless of the size. It gives power to NH, but it also gives power to huge Florida and Ohio.

The problem with your logic is that you assume that states that aren't in play will never change their positions. It is a fair assumption but not an accurate one.

​50 years ago, the electoral map looked entirely different.

http://www.270towin.com/1960_Election/

Texas and New York both voted Democrat while California was Republican.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Life

[Tryhard]

It's also just weird that a voter in bumfuck Wyoming inherently has over 350% more worth of a vote compared to someone from California on the account of voters to electoral college vote ratio. Frankly, I wouldn't be treating voters living in rural states as "beneath me", I'd want them to be equal to me. If less people live in that area, I have no problem with rural areas having less of a say (in terms of having less people of course) and find it strange why people have a problem with this. This is partly the reason why the US has notoriously low political turnout.

I thought the electoral college was a bad implementation for ages, ever since I heard about Gore.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Tryhard

[Dark Holy Elf]

The electoral college exists to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Seems to be enabling the tyranny of a minority at the moment to me, and I'm not sure how that's better. People who voted Democratic are gonna have almost no power at the federal level for the next 4 years, despite there being more of them than who voted Republican at both the presidential and senate level.

http://imgur.com/j2XTzHS

Half the population lives in these counties. Yes, I know "land can't vote", but people do live outside of those areas. They deserve to have their voices heard, and deciding by national popular vote would mean their opinions don't matter.

If you decided by popular vote, their opinions would count for exactly half of the total. Which is as it should be. As is a person in Wyoming's vote counts far more than that of a person who lives in California or Texas (incidentlaly, why is Texas so often ignored in these conversations? It's the second most populous state by quite a bit, not NY).

I think the EC has its advantages (it prevents the need for a nation-wide recount, for one), but some of the defences of it seem pretty logically inconsistent. And it has some major problems, and yeah I do think it has probably contributed to the low turnout in US elections.

[Life]

Seems to be enabling the tyranny of a minority at the moment to me, and I'm not sure how that's better. People who voted Democratic are gonna have almost no power at the federal level for the next 4 years, despite there being more of them than who voted Republican at both the presidential and senate level.

If you decided by popular vote, their opinions would count for exactly half of the total. Which is as it should be. As is a person in Wyoming's vote counts far more than that of a person who lives in California or Texas (incidentlaly, why is Texas so often ignored in these conversations? It's the second most populous state by quite a bit, not NY).

I think the EC has its advantages (it prevents the need for a nation-wide recount, for one), but some of the defences of it seem pretty logically inconsistent. And it has some major problems, and yeah I do think it has probably contributed to the low turnout in US elections.

No, it doesn't.

Wyoming is worth 3 electoral votes. Texas is worth 38. They're based on proportion.

11 Wyomings are worth 1 Texas.

[Nobody]

No, it doesn't.

Wyoming is worth 3 electoral votes. Texas is worth 38. They're based on proportion.

11 Wyomings are worth 1 Texas.

Well, Texas has 50 times the population of Wyoming...

Also, as it is now, neither Texas nor Wyoming matter, since their votes are taken for granted

Edited November 26, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Life]

Well, Texas has 50 times the population of Wyoming...

Also, as it is now, neither Texas nor Wyoming matter

Yes but 3 electoral votes is the minimum a state can have. 2 Senators and 1 Member of Congress.

The only real argument I can see here is "well, just change the proportions to more accurately represent the states". Which I'm not completely opposed to but I don't like the idea of too many Members of Congress.

EDIT: I thought about it and even that idea is stupid. 1 Member of Congress in Wyoming vs. 36 in Texas. Yep, US system is brilliant and that's without any sarcasm.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Life

[Dark Holy Elf]

You could reduce every state's EV total by 2 (that is, make it equal to the number of House of Rep members), which would make them roughly proportional to population. You could also change it so that every state had a system like Nebraska or Maine, thus giving a rural Californian (majority Republican) or a person in Austin (majority Democrat) more likely to have their vote reflected. Combined, these two would make the system more like that of the UK or Canada, which much less often hands absolute power to someone who couldn't even manage a plurality of the vote.

[Nobody]

You could also change it so that every state had a system like Nebraska or Maine

that'd be even worse, though, due to gerrymandering =/