Shoot The Breeze

[Mr.Tickles]

Fuck yes I do. If exponentially more people live in that city. I'll flip it around, why should a town of 40k people in BFE, Wyoming have exponentially more power to decide who's president than the city of Los Angeles?

We already allocate two Senators per state regardless of population or area. We already have tinier states over-represented in the House of Representatives because there's a floor on the number of Reps in the smaller states (one) and a cap on the number of Reps in the larger states because the number of Reps hasn't been increased since the 1920s, despite the population having grown by more than 200%.

Because it’s not all about what LA wants. People in LA generally want the same thing and won’t care one bit about what Wyoming want. So why should LA completely override Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and probably Kansas as well?

The electoral college ensures that all states get a say in who’s president.

Here’s the problem. The house wasn’t supposed to be capped so the big states are underrepresented in the electoral college. Constitutionally the big states should have more electors.

The reason they were capped is because the populations were increasing to a point where again, only a few places would decide who’s president.

How the fuck can you begin to make this argument. Empty land shouldn't have a say in who gets to be president. Population centers should have more of a say because they're population centers i.e. more people fucking live there. If you're so concerned that the population centers are too skewed one way in their political ideology, convince 500,000 of your closest buddies to move there with you and you can un-skew it. Because that's how democracy works.

Riiiight, empty lands. People do live in those states in case you didn’t know. Well it’s a good thing we’re a democratic republic and not a true democracy. Somehow I doubt you’d feel so strongly about this if your particular political party didn’t dominate large population centers. I for one am glad that the small states don’t get completely shafted by the whims and desires of a few cities.

 

[CF]

Its identity politics at its finest. I really think dems have very little chance of winning. Absolutely nobody is excited about a Biden Harris ticket. Yet Trump still gets large crowds anywhere he goes.

Really? A crowd size argument?

I’m voting for Biden, I’m definitely not excited about it but fortunately a vote don’t count more if it’s more excited.

Because it’s not all about what LA wants. People in LA generally want the same thing and won’t care one bit about what Wyoming want. So why should LA completely override Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and probably Kansas as well?

The electoral college ensures that all states get a say in who’s president.



The reason they were capped is because the populations were increasing to a point where again, only a few places would decide who’s president.



Riiiight, empty lands. People do live in those states in case you didn’t know. Well it’s a good thing we’re a democratic republic and not a true democracy. Somehow I doubt you’d feel so strongly about this if your particular political party didn’t dominate large population centers. I for one am glad that the small states don’t get completely shafted by the whims and desires of a few cities.

So you think it’s right that people who live in more populous states have votes that don’t mean as much? I have a feeling you wouldn’t be making this argument if big cities were full of conservatives and liberals lived in rural areas.

 

[Termine]

Because it’s not all about what LA wants. People in LA generally want the same thing and won’t care one bit about what Wyoming want. So why should LA completely override Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and probably Kansas as well?

I really really really don't care how many states you rattle off. The state boundaries are more arbitrary than not. You can split the Dakotas into an East and West as well. Hell, break up California into 20 states and put the splits down LA, SFO and San Diego. It wouldn't change my argument that the nation-wide political offices should be elected by the nation instead of the states.

 

[32andBelow]

Because it’s not all about what LA wants. People in LA generally want the same thing and won’t care one bit about what Wyoming want. So why should LA completely override Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and probably Kansas as well?

The electoral college ensures that all states get a say in who’s president.



The reason they were capped is because the populations were increasing to a point where again, only a few places would decide who’s president.



Riiiight, empty lands. People do live in those states in case you didn’t know. Well it’s a good thing we’re a democratic republic and not a true democracy. Somehow I doubt you’d feel so strongly about this if your particular political party didn’t dominate large population centers. I for one am glad that the small states don’t get completely shafted by the whims and desires of a few cities.

California has more republicans than any other state. If you had a popular vote then their vote would matter more.

 

[Mr.Tickles]

So you think it’s right that people who live in more populous states have votes that don’t mean as much? I have a feeling you wouldn’t be making this argument if big cities were full of conservatives and liberals lived in rural areas.

I actually would be. I’m all for states having more power and not less. I’m also a moderate and a registered libertarian. I’m not a fan of the two party system in the least bit.

I really really really don't care how many states you rattle off. The state boundaries are more arbitrary than not. You can split the Dakotas into an East and West as well. Hell, break up California into 20 states and put the splits down LA, SFO and San Diego. It wouldn't change my argument that the nation-wide political offices should be elected by the nation instead of the states.

For me the different values that are held all across the country need to be represented in who the country picks as president. With a straight popular vote that wouldn’t happen.

California has more republicans than any other state. If you had a popular vote then their vote would matter more.

It still wouldn’t solve the issue of entire swaths of the country having little to no chance in having a say in who they would want as president.

 

[32andBelow]

It still wouldn’t solve the issue of entire swaths of the country having little to no chance in having a say in who they would want as president.

that doesn’t make it fair for the majority to not get their pick. The Republican Party could like actually do things to get more votes.

 

[Phillytroll69]

Just chiming in we are neither a capitalist nor democratic society

Republic, for which it stands.

Representative democracy (at best) but ultimately lobbying on both parties. Dollars = votes for laws, not people

socialistic bail outs (banks, airlines, cars, etc) but we can't afford to have government subsidized insulin

 

[SharkBait]

socialistic bail outs (banks, airlines, cars, etc) but we can't afford to have government subsidized insulin

and lets go back to the gold standard

 

[Termine]

For me the different values that are held all across the country need to be represented in who the country picks as president. With a straight popular vote that wouldn’t happen.

I literally don't understand you. To me it seems prima facie obvious that if we had a popular vote the President would reflect the values of the country as a whole. Of course I also don't like first-past-the-post voting, if we had ranked-choice voting I would be a lot happier.

 

[CF]

I actually would be. I’m all for states having more power and not less. I’m also a moderate and a registered libertarian. I’m not a fan of the two party system in the least bit.



For me the different values that are held all across the country need to be represented in who the country picks as president. With a straight popular vote that wouldn’t happen.



It still wouldn’t solve the issue of entire swaths of the country having little to no chance in having a say in who they would want as president.

So the solution to being worried that someone’s vote might not be meaningful enough is making someone else’s vote mean less?

 

[Shikaka]

The concept of a purely democratic process is absurdly unconstitutional and support of it is equivalent to support of mob rule.

 

[32andBelow]

I think you’d have millions of voters whose votes would now “count” if you did simple popular. If that doesn’t work for your party time to check your values

 

[CF]

The concept of a purely democratic process is absurdly unconstitutional and support of it is equivalent to support of mob rule.

I can’t wait to see who the trainees elect national president next time!

 

[32andBelow]

I can’t wait to see who the trainees elect national president next time!

Islip area at n90 should pick the rep!

 

[Mr.Tickles]

that doesn’t make it fair for the majority to not get their pick. The Republican Party could like actually do things to get more votes.

The majority of a very select few places of the country. The whole point of the electoral college was to prevent a few places having all the say. It’s just as important today as it was in 1776.

I literally don't understand you. To me it seems prima facie obvious that if we had a popular vote the President would reflect the values of the country as a whole. Of course I also don't like first-past-the-post voting, if we had ranked-choice voting I would be a lot happier.

The president would reflect the values of what? Maybe 6 to 8 cities? I think a fair compromise would be splitting a states electoral votes by how the people actually voted instead of giving all the electoral votes to one candidate. Ranked choice voting would be very interesting. Other parties beside democrat and republican would actually stand a chance since people wouldn’t be ”wasting” a vote.

So the solution to being worried that someone’s vote might not be meaningful enough is making someone else’s vote mean less?

States need to have representation in who is elected president so, yes. The electoral college ensures a few cities don’t decide who becomes president for the rest of the country.

 

[32andBelow]

The majority of a very select few places of the country. The whole point of the electoral college was to prevent a few places having all the say. It’s just as important today as it was in 1776.



The president would reflect the values of what? Maybe 6 to 8 cities? I think a fair compromise would be splitting a states electoral votes by how the people actually voted instead of giving all the electoral votes to one candidate. Ranked choice voting would be very interesting. Other parties beside democrat and republican would actually stand a chance since people wouldn’t be ”wasting” a vote.



States need to have representation in who is elected president so, yes. The electoral college ensures a few cities don’t decide who becomes president for the rest of the country.

Don’t get it twisted the electoral college was most likely to override the public in the event of them electing a realty tv vote. The good news is the states have the right CONSITUTIONALLY to pledge their electors however they want. So I hope the national popular vote pact gets to the required 270 votes to end this madness

 

[GulfCharlie]

Right I am too lazy tonight to type a dissertation on the Electoral College so here...

In Defense of the Electoral College

Hardly any constitutional provision is harder to explain, or easier to misunderstand, than the Electoral College — especially after an election in which the winner of the popular vote did not become president. When it is not dismissed as a relic, it ...

www.nationalaffairs.com

Abolishing the Electoral College now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, but it would also mean dismantling federalism. After that, there would be no sense in having a Senate (which, after all, represents the interests of the states), and eventually, no sense in even having states, except as administrative departments of the central government. We structure everything in our political system around the idea of a federation that divides power between states and the federal government — states had to ratify the Constitution through state conventions beginning in 1787; state legislatures are required for ratifying constitutional amendments; and even the Constitution itself can only be terminated by action of the states in a national convention. Federalism is in the bones of our nation, and abolishing the Electoral College would point toward doing away with the entire federal system.

None of this, moreover, is likely to produce a more democratic election system. There are plenty of democracies, like Great Britain, where no one ever votes directly for a head of state. And there are federal republics that have maniacally complicated processes for electing leaders.

The German federal republic, for instance, is composed (like ours) of states that existed as independent entities long before their unification as a German nation, and whose histories as such have created an electoral system that makes our "antiquated" Electoral College look like a model of efficiency. In the German system, voters in 299 electoral districts each cast two votes in elections for the Bundestag (Germany's parliament): the first for a directly elected member and the second for one of 34 approved parties (in 2017), whose caucuses then identify candidates. A federal president (Bundespräsident) is elected every five years by a federal convention that reflects the party majorities in the Bundestag and the state parliaments of the 16 German states. Finally, the federal president proposes the name of the de facto head of state, the chancellor (Bundeskanzler) to the Bundestag. By contrast, the Electoral College is remarkably straightforward. It is also useful to bear in mind the examples set by some of the nations that do hold direct elections for their heads of state: Afghanistan, Iran, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe are just a few. Jettisoning the Electoral College for direct popular elections would not automatically guarantee greater democracy.

 

[32andBelow]

Right I am too lazy tonight to type a dissertation on the Electoral College so here...

In Defense of the Electoral College

Hardly any constitutional provision is harder to explain, or easier to misunderstand, than the Electoral College — especially after an election in which the winner of the popular vote did not become president. When it is not dismissed as a relic, it ...

www.nationalaffairs.com

Abolishing the Electoral College now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, but it would also mean dismantling federalism. After that, there would be no sense in having a Senate (which, after all, represents the interests of the states), and eventually, no sense in even having states, except as administrative departments of the central government. We structure everything in our political system around the idea of a federation that divides power between states and the federal government — states had to ratify the Constitution through state conventions beginning in 1787; state legislatures are required for ratifying constitutional amendments; and even the Constitution itself can only be terminated by action of the states in a national convention. Federalism is in the bones of our nation, and abolishing the Electoral College would point toward doing away with the entire federal system.

None of this, moreover, is likely to produce a more democratic election system. There are plenty of democracies, like Great Britain, where no one ever votes directly for a head of state. And there are federal republics that have maniacally complicated processes for electing leaders.

The German federal republic, for instance, is composed (like ours) of states that existed as independent entities long before their unification as a German nation, and whose histories as such have created an electoral system that makes our "antiquated" Electoral College look like a model of efficiency. In the German system, voters in 299 electoral districts each cast two votes in elections for the Bundestag (Germany's parliament): the first for a directly elected member and the second for one of 34 approved parties (in 2017), whose caucuses then identify candidates. A federal president (Bundespräsident) is elected every five years by a federal convention that reflects the party majorities in the Bundestag and the state parliaments of the 16 German states. Finally, the federal president proposes the name of the de facto head of state, the chancellor (Bundeskanzler) to the Bundestag. By contrast, the Electoral College is remarkably straightforward. It is also useful to bear in mind the examples set by some of the nations that do hold direct elections for their heads of state: Afghanistan, Iran, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe are just a few. Jettisoning the Electoral College for direct popular elections would not automatically guarantee greater democracy.

But you have to address the fact that it hasn’t been adjusted since the early 1900s. You can’t just not touch it when populations change. I’m more okay with it if they address the imbalance of the current situation

 

[twn]

Right I am too lazy tonight to type a dissertation on the Electoral College so here...

In Defense of the Electoral College

Hardly any constitutional provision is harder to explain, or easier to misunderstand, than the Electoral College — especially after an election in which the winner of the popular vote did not become president. When it is not dismissed as a relic, it ...

www.nationalaffairs.com

Abolishing the Electoral College now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, but it would also mean dismantling federalism. After that, there would be no sense in having a Senate (which, after all, represents the interests of the states), and eventually, no sense in even having states, except as administrative departments of the central government. We structure everything in our political system around the idea of a federation that divides power between states and the federal government — states had to ratify the Constitution through state conventions beginning in 1787; state legislatures are required for ratifying constitutional amendments; and even the Constitution itself can only be terminated by action of the states in a national convention. Federalism is in the bones of our nation, and abolishing the Electoral College would point toward doing away with the entire federal system.

None of this, moreover, is likely to produce a more democratic election system. There are plenty of democracies, like Great Britain, where no one ever votes directly for a head of state. And there are federal republics that have maniacally complicated processes for electing leaders.

The German federal republic, for instance, is composed (like ours) of states that existed as independent entities long before their unification as a German nation, and whose histories as such have created an electoral system that makes our "antiquated" Electoral College look like a model of efficiency. In the German system, voters in 299 electoral districts each cast two votes in elections for the Bundestag (Germany's parliament): the first for a directly elected member and the second for one of 34 approved parties (in 2017), whose caucuses then identify candidates. A federal president (Bundespräsident) is elected every five years by a federal convention that reflects the party majorities in the Bundestag and the state parliaments of the 16 German states. Finally, the federal president proposes the name of the de facto head of state, the chancellor (Bundeskanzler) to the Bundestag. By contrast, the Electoral College is remarkably straightforward. It is also useful to bear in mind the examples set by some of the nations that do hold direct elections for their heads of state: Afghanistan, Iran, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe are just a few. Jettisoning the Electoral College for direct popular elections would not automatically guarantee greater democracy.

Young socialists today dont understand anything about this, they just want to burn the system down.

 

[Phillyman2633]

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