Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 28, 2018 20:35:12 GMT -5
The electoral college is 1,000% necessary. However, it (to the best of my knowledge) has never been updated for population changes. The way it is now it gives a disproportionate amount of power to the vast minority. That's not democracy. It was intended to make things even federally and right now it's doing the exact opposite of that. Let's face it. If Hillary won the electoral college and not the 'popular vote', the same brats wouldn't be advocating for the abolition of the electoral college. Perhaps, but your side definitely would. The electoral college was created to avoid a system based on mob rule. The electoral college, even today, works as it was designed to. It will reflect the will of the nation, whatever the will of the nation may be. The only thing that could taint the electoral college system is fraudulent voting. if you mean the candidates suck, that is the fault of the people themselves, not the electoral college. Donald Trump's 36% of the popular vote is hardly indicative of the will of the nation. I explained how the electoral college works, and how it reflects the will of the nation. That you would cite the popular vote tells me you didn't read the post, or that perhaps I didn't explain the electoral college clearly enough. Would you care to tell me specifically which part of my initial post was unclear, or that you disagree with? I'm sure with enough discourse we can reach an understanding.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 28, 2018 20:38:50 GMT -5
I explained why it was fair. Very specifically. If you'd care to explain where I was wrong, I will be more than happy to listen. When you talk about gerrymandering and areas being "remapped", this has absolutely zero to do with the electoral college. It isn't fair because it's rigged to overly favor the minority instead of give them a fair chance, like it was designed to do. The higher the population, the more electoral votes a state has. Would you mind telling specifically which state it is that you think has too much power? For example, California. If California were taken off the map, the Democrat party would never win another election, no matter if it was based on the popular vote nor the electoral college. With that example in mind, which state do you think has an unfair advantage in the electoral college?
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 28, 2018 20:42:57 GMT -5
This thread is a direct call out on what I said. None of that proves why it’s right. Saying that Hillary had the majority of votes, is 100% accurate and there’s no changing it. When gerrymandering is a real thing and a real problem, that’s how you know the electoral vote system is very wrong. Each district can be rescaled in order to accommodate whatever party is laying out the structure. Your map proves nothing, as the majority of red (especially middle America) is scarcely populated. The majority of the blue is more densely populated, this more people voting blue. Everyone defending it, damn well knows they’d be crying if trump won the pop vote and lost the electoral. So in your point of view...even though the majority voted against trump, it’s ok because the lines were drawn for him to win. I explained the weakness of electing a president through the democratic process. Did you read my post? If so, what part specifically do you disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 28, 2018 20:49:41 GMT -5
It isn't fair because it's rigged to overly favor the minority instead of give them a fair chance, like it was designed to do. The higher the population, the more electoral votes a state has. Would you mind telling specifically which state it is that you think has too much power? For example, California. If California were taken off the map, the Democrat party would never win another election, no matter if it was based on the popular vote nor the electoral college. With that example in mind, which state do you think has an unfair advantage in the electoral college? Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767 and as a result it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1. That's not what democracy looks like.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Jan 28, 2018 20:50:04 GMT -5
Ignoring all the Trump/Clinton your side would do this or that....When the one user who argues most from the left and all of the users who argue for the right all agree that the Electoral college is needed....then clearly only one person is wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 17:48:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 21:09:55 GMT -5
If Trump needed to win the so called popular vote he would have. He’d have campaigned differently. He won, using the rules your country set. He’s your President.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Jan 28, 2018 21:13:13 GMT -5
This won't end well.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 28, 2018 21:16:32 GMT -5
The higher the population, the more electoral votes a state has. Would you mind telling specifically which state it is that you think has too much power? For example, California. If California were taken off the map, the Democrat party would never win another election, no matter if it was based on the popular vote nor the electoral college. With that example in mind, which state do you think has an unfair advantage in the electoral college? Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767 and as a result it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1. That's not what democracy looks like. Again, the United States is not a democracy. As I have already explained.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 28, 2018 21:20:39 GMT -5
Ignoring all the Trump/Clinton your side would do this or that....When the one user who argues most from the left and all of the users who argue for the right all agree that the Electoral college is needed....then clearly only one person is wrong. The biggest issue is that the only people who criticize the Electoral College are people who don't understand it, nor do they care to. You can tell by the way they repeat logical fallacies over and over that have already been explained. "That's not a what a democracy looks like!" Of course it isn't, because the United States is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jan 28, 2018 21:24:29 GMT -5
2 party system is totally fair...
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 28, 2018 22:16:05 GMT -5
Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767 and as a result it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1. That's not what democracy looks like. Again, the United States is not a democracy. As I have already explained. So the voters of one state should have nearly four times the say as voters of another state simply because there as less people in their state?
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 28, 2018 22:16:45 GMT -5
Ignoring all the Trump/Clinton your side would do this or that....When the one user who argues most from the left and all of the users who argue for the right all agree that the Electoral college is needed....then clearly only one person is wrong. The biggest issue is that the only people who criticize the Electoral College are people who don't understand it, nor do they care to. You can tell by the way they repeat logical fallacies over and over that have already been explained. "That's not a what a democracy looks like!" Of course it isn't, because the United States is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. That's a cop out. You say that the EC is indicative of the will of the people. So how do you explain someone losing the popular vote but still being the will if the people? If the people wanted him, they would have voted for him. You are very purposefully conflating the will of the people with the will of your people.
|
|
|
Post by disorder on Jan 28, 2018 23:55:40 GMT -5
Again you cannot say the electoral vote is fair in any way. The districts are constantly remapped based on race, party and income. I explained why it was fair. Very specifically. If you'd care to explain where I was wrong, I will be more than happy to listen. When you talk about gerrymandering and areas being "remapped", this has absolutely zero to do with the electoral college. It has everything to do with it when you post a map of congressional districts. Sure they have to have equal population. but in PA for example, these districts are based on race and poverty levels. Basically who will vote for who and they can benefit an election. And what do you know, PAs district map was just deemed unconstitutional this past week by a federal court due to gerrymandering, which they believe had an impact on the 2016 election. I get why we have the electoral vote and I understand it. I get your argument
|
|
|
Post by disorder on Jan 28, 2018 23:57:41 GMT -5
Ignoring all the Trump/Clinton your side would do this or that....When the one user who argues most from the left and all of the users who argue for the right all agree that the Electoral college is needed....then clearly only one person is wrong. Great logic Because more people believe something, obviously it means it’s true.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Jan 29, 2018 1:03:03 GMT -5
That map makes me sad because it shows that about 90 percent of America is dumb ass.
|
|
|
Post by 6 seasons and a movie on Jan 29, 2018 8:29:21 GMT -5
Ignoring all the Trump/Clinton your side would do this or that....When the one user who argues most from the left and all of the users who argue for the right all agree that the Electoral college is needed....then clearly only one person is wrong. Great logic Because more people believe something, obviously it means it’s true. Especially when the majority of the people agreeing on the EC in the thread are from the UK. I remember during the election Trump supporters on this forum were wanting the EC gone because they thought he would win the popular vote and lose the election due to the EC. Trump himself wanted it gone in 2012 when he misread the votes and thought Romney got more votes than Obama. I remember in a government class in 1999 or 2000 my teacher was talking about that the EC was something that would likely be changed in my lifetime and that was even before Bush/Gore.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 29, 2018 10:22:51 GMT -5
2 party system is totally fair... I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the U.S. is not a 2 party system. In the 2016 presidential elections Donald Trump ran as a Republican, Hillary Clinton ran as a Democrap, Gary Johnson ran as a Libertarian, Jill Stein ran as the Green Party candidate, and Evan McMullin ran as an Independent. That's 5 different candidates from 4 different parties.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 29, 2018 10:35:00 GMT -5
The higher the population, the more electoral votes a state has. Would you mind telling specifically which state it is that you think has too much power? For example, California. If California were taken off the map, the Democrat party would never win another election, no matter if it was based on the popular vote nor the electoral college. With that example in mind, which state do you think has an unfair advantage in the electoral college? Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767 and as a result it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1. That's not what democracy looks like. The U.S. is not a democracy. But let me get something straight here, just so we're clear. You think California, with their 55 electoral votes, is at a disadvantage compared to Wyoming, who has 3 electoral votes? You think a state which already has the most electoral votes of any state in the union should have more? A candidate would have to win Wyoming (3), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Alaska (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Delaware (3), Montana (3), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (4), Idaho (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), West Virginia (5), New Mexico (5), Nebraska (5), and Nevada (6) to equal California. You think California, which has more power than 18 states combined, is somehow unfairly represented in the electoral college, and that they need MORE electoral votes? OK.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 29, 2018 10:48:37 GMT -5
I explained why it was fair. Very specifically. If you'd care to explain where I was wrong, I will be more than happy to listen. When you talk about gerrymandering and areas being "remapped", this has absolutely zero to do with the electoral college. It has everything to do with it when you post a map of congressional districts. Sure they have to have equal population. but in PA for example, these districts are based on race and poverty levels. Basically who will vote for who and they can benefit an election. And what do you know, PAs district map was just deemed unconstitutional this past week by a federal court due to gerrymandering, which they believe had an impact on the 2016 election. I get why we have the electoral vote and I understand it. I get your argument No. Congressional districts can influence which political party has an advantage in those districts. Redistricting is legal, and it happens all the time. The results can influence representation in the House of Representatives, but it does not change how many electoral votes a state has. Every state gets two electoral votes (due to each state having two senators), and representatives proportional to their population. These numbers can go up or down based on their population. A new census is taken every 10 years, which is when you will see states gain electoral votes (such as Texas most recently did) or lose them (as New York and Ohio did) based on changes in population. Gaining or losing electoral votes has nothing to do with redistricting. Whether your representatives are Republicans or Democrats might change, based on how a zone is redistricted, but none of this effects population, which is how your additional number of electoral votes are determined. As far as you "getting my argument", I am very happy to hear that. I feel like if you at least understand why the U.S. uses an electoral college, and why many people consider that to be more fair than a democracy, then I haven't wasted my time. Would you now be willing to concede that the Electoral College is indeed defensible, even just a little bit? That the electoral college does indeed have at least some merit to it?
|
|
|
Post by disorder on Jan 29, 2018 11:25:29 GMT -5
It has everything to do with it when you post a map of congressional districts. Sure they have to have equal population. but in PA for example, these districts are based on race and poverty levels. Basically who will vote for who and they can benefit an election. And what do you know, PAs district map was just deemed unconstitutional this past week by a federal court due to gerrymandering, which they believe had an impact on the 2016 election. I get why we have the electoral vote and I understand it. I get your argument No. Congressional districts can influence which political party has an advantage in those districts. Redistricting is legal, and it happens all the time. The results can influence representation in the House of Representatives, but it does not change how many electoral votes a state has. Every state gets two electoral votes (due to each state having two senators), and representatives proportional to their population. These numbers can go up or down based on their population. A new census is taken every 10 years, which is when you will see states gain electoral votes (such as Texas most recently did) or lose them (as New York and Ohio did) based on changes in population. Gaining or losing electoral votes has nothing to do with redistricting. Whether your representatives are Republicans or Democrats might change, based on how a zone is redistricted, but none of this effects population, which is how your additional number of electoral votes are determined. As far as you "getting my argument", I am very happy to hear that. I feel like if you at least understand why the U.S. uses an electoral college, and why many people consider that to be more fair than a democracy, then I haven't wasted my time. Would you now be willing to concede that the Electoral College is indeed defensible, even just a little bit? That the electoral college does indeed have at least some merit to it? It doesn’t change how many votes a state gets, but how those votes are swayed. As I said, it was an example they used as to why the pa map was deemed unconstitutional. I said it’s a bs system. I understand why we have it, but it definitely needs to be tweeted and fixed. There’s no reason a guy living in the middle of Nebraska should have a stronger vote than someone living in a more populated area. I get that he won more states thus, those states points were awarded to him. My original argument was that the majority of voters did not vote for him. That was what I originally responded to in the original post you decided to make a thread about. My argument is that individuals should get more of a say than they have and that the popular vote should be more than just a graph they show on the news.
|
|