General US Politics

[Emperor Petitt]

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.

I'll accept a true 100% winner takes all system, when the supporters of both sides stop bullying people to get votes for their candidate

[Sylphid]

There was some talk about foreign reactions to Trump being elected as the president few pages back. Here's an... Interesting one, from Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister.

He (Trump) is like a Wild West hero coming to the rotten capital, cleaning it of all evil and bringing in the true feelings of the honest people.

Translated by yours truly (our national news channel doesn't want to translate their own articles to English). I admit to having taken some creative liberty with the term Wild West hero, to make his meaning more clear in English (more literal translation would be "Western man", but I'm not sure that would convey the meaning the same way it does in Finnish).

[Topaz Light]

[spoiler=A foreword on white, male, straight, cis, etc. privilege, since people tend to misunderstand (and misrepresent) what the terms actually refer to]Contrary to how it's often talked about, saying that somebody is "privileged" due to being in a majority does not refer to them being inherently well off. Indeed, you can be a straight, cisgender white man and be in an absolutely horrible position in life. I don't think any sensible person is really denying that.

However, odds are, very little, if any, of the misfortunes that got you into that situation were a direct reaction to you being white, or male, or straight, or cisgender. This distinction is important, because, say, black people do have others visit cruelty and misfortune upon them for their being black. Women do have people treat them like objects, like inferiors, for them being women. Homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, transgender people do get hated, denied service, made a mockery of, or even physically assaulted or killed for them being LGBTQIA+.

When I say "as a direct result of", I mean situations in which the abuse would not have occurred had the victim been white, or male, or straight, or cis, or what have you. And I am not saying that this happening the other way around isn't a thing that happens ever, nor am I saying that it isn't wrong when it does happen, but it is far, far less frequent.

This is where the idea of privilege comes from. If you're white and you get stopped by police, more than 999 times out of 1,000 it will not be because you're white. If you're black and you get stopped by the police, odds are frighteningly high that it is indeed simply because you're black, with no actual tangible evidence to indicate that you're actually guilty of anything illegal.

And to people who will come back at this saying "but statistically, there are a lot of black criminals!", crime follows poverty. The majority of criminals come from impoverished backgrounds, and their resorting to crime is an act of desperation driven by that state of poverty. Any statistics indicating a higher-than-average amount of black criminals are... well, first of all, they're also probably somewhat influenced by wrongful arrests, but secondly, and more importantly, it's simply a consequence of the overlap between the demographics of black people and impoverished people, an overlap which is itself a lasting consequence of slavery, since black people, as a whole, started from quite literally rock bottom in this country. They started with a massive disadvantage, and while, yes, that has been alleviated quite a bit over the years, they're still not nearly caught up yet.

Simply publically decrying something as abominable and peeling away laws actively perpetuating it does not in itself instantly solve every single problem caused by the abominable practice. It is a very important step, yes, but there are still things like public opinion, the self-perpetuating cycle of trending disparity of economic status and the resulting disparity in quality of education, etc., that end up keeping a great many of these problems in place. The problem is not solved simply because laws have stepped up to combat the most overt issues. That is progress, and it is an important step, but it does not, in itself, solve the entire problem.

So, when people say that you have "white privilege", what they really mean is that you aren't disadvantaged by your race. Almost nobody in this country will refuse to hire you, refuse to help you, call the police on you, etc. due to you being white. They may do any or all of those things for other reasons, but almost certainly not because you're white.

If this still sounds too absolute to you, think of it this way; having "X privilege" doesn't mean that you are never, ever discriminated against for being X. It means that you have a far lower likelihood of being discriminated against for being X, compared to people who are, say, Y, or Z, or W instead.

That's what the concept of "X privilege" is. That's what it refers to, and it really irritates me that it often gets explained so poorly, imprecisely, and/or just plain vitriolically that the concept ends up so muddled by the time it reaches other people.

Feel how you will about this, but that's what "X privilege" actually refers to. That's obviously not how everybody is gonna explain it, but this is what it actually means.

I think the underlying problem with an absolutely proportionate democratic vote here is that there are issues that are present in less-populated, more rural areas that simply do not (directly) affect big cities. If these people don't get some kind of boost to their voice, the odds of their issues being addressed are slim to none, because the people in the big cities aren't especially likely to be aware of those issues at all, and are even less likely to care about them.

This, I can agree with.

However, there is also the risk that this boost can backfire and result in policies that harm large swaths of the population being voted in due to the boost given to relatively small, fringe groups who supported those policies.

Voting is a tool. The election system is a tool. Any election system is a tool. There is no inherent good or evil; no inherent morality whatsoever in a tool. Its very reason for existing is to serve as an extension and a facilitator of the will of humans. Its existence is a transparent one that takes on the colors of whatever is channeled through it.

That said, some tools are better-constructed than others, and it is important to turn a critical eye on them when their efficacy is called into question. While the case may indeed be that there is not—whether simply for the moment or at all, ever—any way for net improvements to be made—as all too often, fortifications against one weakness open up another—the examination itself is critical. You need to examine in order to know, and especially in matters of politics, making truly educated decisions is of critical importance. On that note...

If you were skipping past my post, please start reading here, because this is super important!

I am not going to say that too much focus is being placed on them, because you'd better damn well believe that the people we have making decisions about what the rules and structures governing our society are going to be are of critical importance, but I am going to say that that's the wrong place to start.

If there's one thing, one singular thing to be gleaned from this election, from the fervor, the fear, and the fury on both sides, it's that there are many, many problems in this country. That kind of absolute anger, and vitriol, and anguish is not something that results from mere "trolling" or from anything that basically amounts to just being a jackass for giggles. There are many ways in which it has been expressed that are cruel, and wrong, and absolutely reprehensible, but no mere desire for amusement or something comparable could possibly generate that level of sheer emotional intensity. People on both sides have real fears, and real issues that they want addressed.

Now, to be clear, by "real issues" I refer to issues which are actively causing quantifiable harm to real, verifiably-existent people. Some examples would be...

• Institutional bias against black, hispanic, middle-eastern, and other such racial groups.
• Institutional sexism against women.
• Institutional bias against LGBTQIA+ individuals, including the normalization of using them and their identities as the punchlines of jokes in ways that ridicule them and condemn them as freaks, reinforcing an overall negative and mocking public opinion of them.
• Institutional ableism against the disabled, the mentally-ill, and other groups, such as autistic people.
• All of these cases lead to people in any of these groups being less likely to be hired, less likely to be paid well by their employers, and more likely to be targeted with violence, both physical and verbal.
• Rural communities being hit especially hard by economic and job market woes, leading them to crumble and be mostly abandoned and left in the dust, leaving a great many people devoid of work and living in poverty, which ties into...
• The disregard for veterans and the failure to provide them the care they need to cope with and recover from their physical and psychological injuries.
• The flaws with and cuts in funding to the public education system, including the poor cafeteria practices, inadequate crackdown on bullying, the myopic and inflexible education methods, etc.
• Prevalent corruption, oligarchical practices, and general self-servitude within the government and among the wealthy class in general.
• The homeless, unemployment, and general poverty crises currently ongoing in this country, which are directly exacerbated, in varying capacities, by all of the above issues.

And now, I want to ask you, all of you...

Without condemning or discriminating against any group on the basis of their race, gender (relative to reproductive organs or otherwise), sexual/romantic orientation, or religion...

What issues are you worried about? What issues do you want to see resolved? What are the issues at stake that are closest to your heart, that you see as the most dire, the most in need of expedient and decisive addressing?

It's often said, and correctly so, that the first step to solving a problem is to identify that problem; I fear that, for a lot of people, the actual real problems that need solving have lost prominence in comparison to a fight against the perceived enemy. I am asking this of everybody because I want to try to prove that the real core issues that people want addressed are, in many places (if perhaps not all of them) not nearly so diametrically opposed as a lot of people seem to believe. As long as an antagonistic, "us versus them" mentality persists, nothing will ever really get done, since we'll all be too busy making sure the other side doesn't win. Let's try to share our troubles, and exercise a little sympathy and empathy for each other's concerns. Let's try to understand each other, even if we still don't end up agreeing on everything in the end. Whoever thinks whoever else is right or wrong, we have to start doing this. The gap has to be bridged, or the fighting and resultant harm will never stop.

[spoiler=To avoid clogging up this already gargantuan post even more, here's what's important to me:]
Here are the issues most important to me personally:

• Combating bigotry against others on the basis of race, gender, reproductive organs relative to gender, romantic/sexual orientation, abled/disabled status, neurodivergent traits, religion, etc. A core value of mine is that so long as nobody is being hurt, people should be free to be true to themselves (or for just plain being born with certain genotypes). This also extends to being white, male, straight, cisgender, Christian, etc., by the way. Everyone deserves to be free to be true to themselves, so long as that doesn't involve harming or subjugating others.
• Combating poverty and homelessness. Even setting aside the fact that there are homeless people whose homelessness is due to factors entirely outside their own control and therefore not their fault, I believe that we should care for these people that we have the resources to care for. I do understand that there is value in hard work, and that freeloading should be discouraged, but I feel that demoting homeless and impoverished people, who may not even be in that situation through any shortcoming of their own, to pariah status and essentially leaving them for dead is extremely harsh; almost comically so, were the stakes not so high for the people involved, and the practice itself not so cruel. Many of these people cannot get jobs because they simply lack the resources to make themselves presentable enough; they have extremely limited access to personal hygiene products, to showering and bathing, to fresh, clean clothes and associated laundering services, etc. etc. And that's not even taking into account the places where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around at all (which may well be a part of why they became jobless and impoverished to begin with!). Once someone is in this sort of situation, the very nature of the situation itself makes it incredibly, disproportionately difficult to pull oneself out. It's not impossible, but it's extremely difficult. I do not believe that the rights to a basic living space, to unspoiled food, to clean water, to clothing, to competent healthcare, to the resources needed to maintain one's personal hygiene, fall outside the basic rights every human being deserves. Luxuries, such as televisions, video game consoles, particularly fancy clothes or extravagant food, etc., certainly; those things should definitely have to be earned by giving back to society, but I absolutely believe that everybody deserves good enough living conditions to be able to live with some modicum of dignity, if not necessarily pride.
• As touched on in the previous bullet point; making good, competent, inclusive healthcare available to everybody. The refusal to treat the injuries and illnesses of very savable people of the grounds of money is nothing short of criminal negligence, even potentially negligent homicide, should it result in loss of life, in my eyes. I am indeed suggesting that this be payed for with taxpayer money, but I don't believe that that's an unreasonable proposition, as, just as everyone pays for it, so too does everyone benefit from it.
• Increasing minimum wage. The entire concept, as it was initially introduced, was meant to ensure that a person working a single full-time job could support themselves and a modestly-sized family on just the money from that one job alone. The amount of money required to support independent living has increased since then; minimum wage has not increased alongside it. Frankly, I believe that minimum wage should be managed via an algorithm in accordance with the costs of living to keep it from ever falling behind its proper portioning, but that may be getting a little specific. The point is, the entire concept was designed specifically to reward hard work, and to ensure that people do get their proper rewards for putting in their fair share of effort.
• Increasing the quality of public education, through to college. Education is extremely important, and it's critical to facilitate it, and to make it available and effective for everyone. This would include broadening available courses, accommodating all learning styles, as well as students with mental illnesses, or mental or learning disabilities, making sure cafeteria food is free for students and is fresh, unspoiled, and healthy, working earnestly to instate and enforce effective, humane anti-bullying policies, and providing counseling for students.
• Believe it or not, retaining freedom of speech is also very important to me, with special attention to what freedom of speech actually is, and that is the government not being able to punish you for what you say. I do think that freedom of speech just as much protects criticism of statements as it protects the initial statements themselves, but that's slightly beside the point here; the point being that restricting freedom of speech too much starts to very quickly become a slippery slope, and one I'd much rather the US didn't start sliding down. For those thinking that this may be difficult to reconcile with my support of minority groups, just remember that saying, "hey, you're an asshole for laughing and making fun of me for my mother's death" is not the same as saying "you're not allowed to say that ever". The thing with slurs is that it's not as much a matter of anybody being literally forbidden from ever using them at all in any context as it is a matter of "hey, you're a huge asshole if you call people this", just like you're a huge asshole for laughing at someone's grief over the loss of a family member (although those two aren't necessarily analogous circumstances). I'm sure somebody else could go into this better than me, and I don't really have any idea how to cover things like certain groups and people reclaiming slurs, but this is how I see things on that front, at least.
• Caring for our planet, including combating climate change. We only have just the one planet, and while it'll be more than happy to carry on and adapt without us, our ability to survive in the environments present on it is at stake. Humans are very resourceful and adaptable, and I'm sure that, ever more so as our technology develops, it would be extremely hard to actually wipe us out as a species, but it's much better that it not come to that point. We need to start making shifts over to greener—and frankly, far more sustainable in the long-term—energy sources, factory designs, and waste disposal practices, as well as reign in things like deforestation, and take steps to combat stuff like poaching more effectively.

These are the issues that are especially important to me, personally. I know that solving this will take time, money, and resources, and I will admit that I don't have a plan for where all of that would come from. However, I am laying this out anyway as a sort of "project goal", or a thesis statement of sorts. Before working towards accomplishing something, you need to make sure you know just what you're working to accomplish to begin with.

My hope is that people can come together to form a cohesive project goal that will make everybody happy and that will not contradict itself, undermine anybody, or throw anyone under the bus. Time has yet to tell if this will pan out or not, but I'm at least willing to give it a try.

Thank you for reading this post. This post loves you.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Topaz Light

[Balcerzak]

If you're arguing against the electoral college, why aren't you also lobbying to disband the senate?

[ping]

If you're arguing against the electoral college, why aren't you also lobbying to disband the senate?

The senate is supposed to represent the singular states.

The president isn't.

[CyborgZeta]

The Electoral College was set up to ensure smaller states can have a voice; it guarantees three electoral votes to every state, with the rest determined by population. This allows states like Alaska, Wyoming and Montana to have a say. Deciding by popular vote would give massively populated states like California and New York even more say than they have now. The Electoral College is not perfect, but it's the best option we have right now for a representative democracy. The US was set up as a federal republic, the Founders did not want mob rule.

Also, to answer an earlier question about how the Democrats managed to lose states like Wisconsin and Michigan, there are a couple factors.

Wisconsin: Hillary and her campaign didn't make a single stop here; they considered it a safe "blue firewall" state. Meanwhile, major GOP Wisconsinites (Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker) were busing themselves across the state campaigning.

Michigan: While Hillary did start showing up here near the very end, Michigan was also ignored and considered a safe state.

To throw in Pennsylvania; Hillary's margins in the major urban areas were low, and rural turnout was way up. The Amish likely voted in significant numbers as well.

While Hillary and the Democrats focused on major cities, Trump (and what surrogates he had) traveled to various places around each state. This is likely part of the reason turnout in rural areas spiked so much in his favor.

Edited November 10, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[Augestein]

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.

The likelihood that they do is the issue. In other words, "what happens if they don't?" You just wasted your time focusing on a place that was going to have your back anyways. Swing states have the highest ratio of "points" earned towards victory while simultaneously having the effect of harming your opponent. Since elections don't allow someone to generate more points and instead the points are simply in a pot to grab, the best answer is to go after the strongest states that are inconsistent.

Unless the state is something like Califronia which has the effect of putting you about a whopping 20% closer to victory, there's no reason to even bother. Especially puny stats like Alaska or Hawaii. That's the issue with the college as it stands. Even worse, is that it also has the effect of making the amount of how much you won in the state completely irrelevant. Let's say you and I both go for Illinois and Pennsylvania. If you win Illinois with 90% of the votes, it doesn't have any more of an effect than say... Me winning Pennsylvania with only 51% of the votes. Meaning both of us get 20 points towards the electoral college and all of the votes against both of us go into a void despite the fact that way more people like you in Illinois than people dislike you in Pennsylvania. In this case, any votes that start exceeding 50% are pointless as they don't result in any actual effect change once victory is earned.

There are definite flaws in the system, and there are definitely ways that it hurts outcomes and the effect of the individual voice.

The Electoral College was set up to ensure smaller states can have a voice; it guarantees three electoral votes to every state, with the rest determined by population. This allows states like Alaska, Wyoming and Montana to have a say. Deciding by popular vote would give massively populated states like California and New York even more say than they have now. The Electoral College is not perfect, but it's the best option we have right now for a representative democracy. The US was set up as a federal republic, the Founders did not want mob rule.

Perhaps the college needs a bit of a tweak. How about instead of simply "winning" a state, instead you just get a percentage of the college based off of the votes. So for instance, if you grab 75% of the votes in Georgia, you may have won Georgia, but you don't get 16 points, instead you get 12 and the other person gets 4. Sure the electoral college is no longer a ton of nice pretty whole numbers, but at least you'd end up with something that actually still represents a possibly more accurate set of the voices from each place.

I definitely see where you're coming from, but the irony is that it still causes this effect. It just means that it places an absolute minimum that the states voice can have. But really, when you compare somewhere like Vermont to Texas, it really puts it into perspective.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Augestein

[Eail]

Currently I don't have the time to go on a big speech like others are doing, woo more pressing matters, but I'll just chime in on the current situation at hand regarding "Popular Vote"

America is a Republic, the Founding Fathers didn't want us to be ruled by the "Tyranny of the Majority", safer this way and I damn well bet it's not changing within our lifetimes.

[Res]

Topaz Light, your goals are pretty much my goals. I'd probably add in a bit about reducing military spending (would more than cover educational costs) and addressing how we conduct foreign affairs. I'd probably also add in something about promoting the issues of indigenous Americans and increasing non-white representation within the government.

[Eail]

Topaz Light, your goals are pretty much my goals. I'd probably add in a bit about reducing military spending (would more than cover educational costs) and addressing how we conduct foreign affairs. I'd probably also add in something about promoting the issues of indigenous Americans and increasing non-white representation within the government.

Become elected based off their ideals and proving that they're the correct person for the job, giving someone something based entirely off their skin color or genitals is how you end up with everyone ready to kill each other and terrible race/gender relations across the country.

[Tryhard]

The Electoral College is not perfect, but it's the best option we have right now for a representative democracy. The US was set up as a federal republic, the Founders did not want mob rule.

Have you got any quotes? I know the following is often attributed to Jefferson, but it's unlikely that he actually did say it, not that I necessarily disagree with the premise:

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

Edited November 10, 2016 by Tryhard

[CyborgZeta]

No specific quotes, but James Madison (and Hamilton) basically made the argument in The Federalist Papers.

Of particular note is Madison's essay in Federalist No. 10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

[Moblin Major General]

I have issues that I want covered that are different in some respects to Topaz Light:

• I take serious issue when people say America is capitalist when it clearly isn't anymore. Regulation centers around controlling big business, but big business ends up controlling regulations, dooming small business. Even raising minimum wage favors megacorporations over small businesses, as most small businesses cannot afford to pay their more skilled workers as much as a corporation like McDonalds would have to under $15/hr doctrine. I have several Filthy Frank memes I could use to describe how I feel about corporatism.
• As important as education is, so too is ensuring the later generations have people able to repair physical aspects of their life, as in skilled or trade workers. The ASVAB should be as mandatory as the ACT and SAT so that people who can do skilled jobs can actually do those jobs.
• Correctional reform. Legalism doesn't work anymore. To add to my next point-
• Cannabis legalization. Several of the states where prison overcrowding is a HUGE problem (California, Florida, and Massachusetts) have decided to legalize it just to flush their prisons. Also, some of these states also have gang problems, so when their moneymaker is gone, maybe the gang culture will die with it.
• Disaster contingency plans. Oftentimes our country is unprepared for when things happen, both natural, accidental, or intentional. The Eisenhower Interstate System isn't effective at evacuating people due to the compact nature of cities.

[Res]

I have issues that I want covered that are different in some respects to Topaz Light:

• As important as education is, so too is ensuring the later generations have people able to repair physical aspects of their life, as in skilled or trade workers. The ASVAB should be as mandatory as the ACT and SAT so that people who can do skilled jobs can actually do those jobs.
• Correctional reform. Legalism doesn't work anymore. To add to my next point-
• Cannabis legalization. Several of the states where prison overcrowding is a HUGE problem (California, Florida, and Massachusetts) have decided to legalize it just to flush their prisons. Also, some of these states also have gang problems, so when their moneymaker is gone, maybe the gang culture will die with it.
• Disaster contingency plans. Oftentimes our country is unprepared for when things happen, both natural, accidental, or intentional. The Eisenhower Interstate System isn't effective at evacuating people due to the compact nature of cities.

I agree with these, and although I believe everyone should have the opportunity to attend college, I would also like to see a college degree not be a requirement for many jobs. College isn't suited to everyone and shouldn't have to be.

[Ema Skye]

Watching the Trump protesters online has never made me so disappointed of my generation.

Beating up people and telling them they have to die because they voted for Trump should not be acceptable. These are the people preaching tolerance!

You're burning the flag... "We're upset and we don't know how to deal with it"... Professors are cancelling classes to support the upset students...

Like this is actually reality?!

Plus it sounds like they're still counting votes and Trump is now the projected winner of the popular vote so Clinton may lose by every margin.

[UNLEASH IT]

The Electoral College was set up to ensure smaller states can have a voice; it guarantees three electoral votes to every state, with the rest determined by population. This allows states like Alaska, Wyoming and Montana to have a say. Deciding by popular vote would give massively populated states like California and New York even more say than they have now. The Electoral College is not perfect, but it's the best option we have right now for a representative democracy. The US was set up as a federal republic, the Founders did not want mob rule.

Also, to answer an earlier question about how the Democrats managed to lose states like Wisconsin and Michigan, there are a couple factors.

Wisconsin: Hillary and her campaign didn't make a single stop here; they considered it a safe "blue firewall" state. Meanwhile, major GOP Wisconsinites (Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker) were busing themselves across the state campaigning.

Michigan: While Hillary did start showing up here near the very end, Michigan was also ignored and considered a safe state.

To throw in Pennsylvania; Hillary's margins in the major urban areas were low, and rural turnout was way up. The Amish likely voted in significant numbers as well.

While Hillary and the Democrats focused on major cities, Trump (and what surrogates he had) traveled to various places around each state. This is likely part of the reason turnout in rural areas spiked so much in his favor.

Wouldn't these major cities vote for her anyway, since they tend to have a large liberal population? This is like if Republicans decided to campaign only in Texas.

[Balcerzak]

The senate is supposed to represent the singular states.

The president isn't.

If individual states don't deserve special consideration in the executive branch, why do they deserve it in the legislative?

Perhaps the college needs a bit of a tweak. How about instead of simply "winning" a state, instead you just get a percentage of the college based off of the votes.

Petition your state legislature. This is perfectly supported by the current system, and in fact Maine and Nebraska have implementations similar (though not precisely) to your example. The fact that since ~1900 states have by and large opted for winner-take-all is an issue for the states. Edited November 10, 2016 by Balcerzak

[Lord Raven]

^ they do but I don't believe in the Senate as a voting body in the slightest.

[Rezzy]

Watching the Trump protesters online has never made me so disappointed of my generation.

Beating up people and telling them they have to die because they voted for Trump should not be acceptable. These are the people preaching tolerance!

You're burning the flag... "We're upset and we don't know how to deal with it"... Professors are cancelling classes to support the upset students...

Like this is actually reality?!

Plus it sounds like they're still counting votes and Trump is now the projected winner of the popular vote so Clinton may lose by every margin.

Has there been a new development with the popular vote? Last I heard, Hillary was about 200K ahead, not an insurmountable lead, but I hadn't heard news that Trump was going to overtake her.

[CyborgZeta]

Wouldn't these major cities vote for her anyway, since they tend to have a large liberal population? This is like if Republicans decided to campaign only in Texas.

Yes, but by focusing on only major cities, they ended up getting swamped by everyone else.

Just look at Michigan and Pennsylvania. Their advantages in the major cities of those states were nulled when the rest of those states came out in droves.

[Crysta]

You do kind of realize that sort of defeats the argument that the densely popular cities would just mow over the dozens of smaller cities, right?

One hundred people in L.A. is no different than one hundred people dispersed over five smaller communities.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Crysta

[Dayni]

You do kind of realize that sort of defeats the argument that the densely popular cities would just mow over the dozens of smaller cities, right?

One hundred people in L.A. is no different than one hundred people dispersed over five smaller communities.

Sorry to be quoting yours, but I want to expand on this (as much as it has been likely been said throughout the thread).

I find it interesting that people argue that the electoral college helps prevent a tyranny of the majority. From what I can tell it still has that threat as well as a chance of someone with a minority of the votes winning. That to me is a bizarre possibility that makes the college a hard sell for me.

This is, after all, a national vote where very person who votes would have a say, yet due to the way the electoral college works, it actively says that certain areas have a larger influence than others and that certain votes count more, which in conjunction with the nigh-duopoly of the two main parties makes areas that are traditionally expected to be for one or the other party not worth convincing at all. Never mind the possibility of people deciding to go against their state's vote (where it is still legal) and voting for the other candidate.

I do see the concern of having bias for urban areas as a result. But I'm not so sure that would hold out in practice.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Dayni

[Emperor Petitt]

Just look at Michigan and Pennsylvania. Their advantages in the major cities of those states were nulled when the rest of those states came out in droves.

To be fair you could call east and west PA two different states

[UNLEASH IT]

Watching the Trump protesters online has never made me so disappointed of my generation.

Beating up people and telling them they have to die because they voted for Trump should not be acceptable. These are the people preaching tolerance!

You're burning the flag... "We're upset and we don't know how to deal with it"... Professors are cancelling classes to support the upset students...

Like this is actually reality?!

Plus it sounds like they're still counting votes and Trump is now the projected winner of the popular vote so Clinton may lose by every margin.

I really do hope that Trump wins the popular vote because if Clinton won it my fellow liberals would just hold on to that, ignore everything else that happened in this election, proclaim the system to be rigged and refuse to change anything about themselves. We need to clearly and without any doubt see the product of our own arrogance shoved in our faces if we are to really change our approach to things.

Edited November 10, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[CyborgZeta]

You do kind of realize that sort of defeats the argument that the densely popular cities would just mow over the dozens of smaller cities, right?

I admit, it's pretty surprising. Enough people turned out that it overcame the win that places like Detroit, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would've normally guaranteed. Pennsylvania and Michigan were very close (among other states that night).

That said, the argument does still apply with certain states. Washington, Oregon, and Illinois are perfect examples of states where politics are dominated by a single county with a major urban area (King, Multnomah and Cook).

To a lesser extent, it's also the case in Nevada. Clark County (Las Vegas) has the majority of the state's population, but Dubya Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004 show that winning Washoe County (Reno) can just barely make up for losing Clark.