Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 17:43:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 11:46:36 GMT -5
2 party system is totally fair... 2 party system has pros and cons. Especially for the way the US government is constructed. The UK has 2 major parties, and 3 or 4 other alternatives, but they basically detract from both parties and twice recently has lead to a hung parliament. Meaning a weak and ineffective government. At least with either a Democrat or Republican majority, things can (usually) actually get done.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jan 29, 2018 12:42:21 GMT -5
2 party system is totally fair... 2 party system has pros and cons. Especially for the way the US government is constructed. The UK has 2 major parties, and 3 or 4 other alternatives, but they basically detract from both parties and twice recently has lead to a hung parliament. Meaning a weak and ineffective government. At least with either a Democrat or Republican majority, things can (usually) actually get done. Lol I was being facetious.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 29, 2018 12:54:49 GMT -5
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. It doesn't change how the votes are swayed. People are going to vote for the president they want, regardless of the district they live in. You said, and I quote, "the electoral vote is complete bs. There’s no defending it one bit." But now you say that you understand why we have it, but that it needs to be "tweeted" (I think you mean tweaked) and "fixed." You're shifting on your initial premise (and kudos for doing so), that it is "complete bs" and that there is no "defending it." In fact you now seem to think the system itself has merit, since your proposal now is to tweak it instead of abolish it. People who live in Nebraska don't have a "stronger vote" than people living in more populated areas. You still don't seem to fully understand how the electoral college works. Individual votes do not determine who wins the presidency. Electoral votes do. Your individual vote will help determine which candidate wins your state. That's it. That's all it does. The end. Nebraska has 5 electoral votes. California has 55 electoral votes. To say that voters in Nebraska have a "stronger vote" than voters in California is patently false. California (and therefore Californians) have a far greater influence on the election than Nebraska does. As I posted earlier, 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 cannot sit there and honestly tell me California is getting shafted in the Electoral College. They aren't. Small states are. They just aren't getting as shafted as much as they would in a presidency determined by the popular vote. In the popular vote no smaller states would ever have a voice again. Candidates would slug it out in L.A. County exclusively throughout their entire campaign, and no one anywhere else would matter or count. Ever. As for the popular vote, it shouldn't even be a graph on the news. It is worthless, as it should be. The popular vote is a euphemism for "mob rule." Mob rule isn't the triumph of freedom. Mob rule is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Thankfully our founding fathers were too smart and too wise to allow our country to descend into the barbarism of mob rule.
|
|
|
Post by Planktung on Jan 29, 2018 13:51:21 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. If the majority of Americans wanted Trump as president, then he would have won the popular vote. That majority chose either Clinton or, in some capacity, anybody but Trump. The Electoral College is an outdated system that goes against the fabled democracy that the U.S. raves about.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 29, 2018 14:16:23 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. If the majority of Americans wanted Trump as president, then he would have won the popular vote. That majority chose either Clinton or, in some capacity, anybody but Trump. The Electoral College is an outdated system that goes against the fabled democracy that the U.S. raves about. It's amazing how many people respond to a thread without reading it. Read the first post on the first page of this thread. The U.S. is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. It is not and was never designed to be a democracy. I've explained why the electoral system is superior to a direct democracy. Read my initial post. If you disagree, tell me where I am wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 17:43:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 14:21:50 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. If the majority of Americans wanted Trump as president, then he would have won the popular vote. That majority chose either Clinton or, in some capacity, anybody but Trump. The Electoral College is an outdated system that goes against the fabled democracy that the U.S. raves about. He didn’t need to win the majority of singular votes. And it’s the American system. He didn’t make it up for that election. As I said, you can’t just move the goal posts because your teams losing
|
|
|
Post by Old School Collector on Jan 29, 2018 15:00:31 GMT -5
Trump 2020 🤘🏻
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 17:43:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 15:06:02 GMT -5
And if not I’d like to formally request he comes to the uk and sorts our country out
|
|
|
Post by 6 seasons and a movie on Jan 29, 2018 15:19:06 GMT -5
More people would vote if it were a popular vote. People in states that are going a certain way no matter what don't vote if they feel their vote doesn't matter. I know several people on both sides that didn't vote because it didn't matter and wasn't worth the hassle.
I don't think Trump wins if more people vote. He made the race ugly and people just wanted it over and a lot didn't vote as turn out was way down. He told coal towns (in swing states)that are dead that he would reopen them, but we have little need for more coal.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 29, 2018 15:24:36 GMT -5
I don't know if more people would vote or not, but it still doesn't change the facts. Democracies tyrannize minorities, which is why the U.S. is not and was never designed to be a democracy. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, and better off because of it.
|
|
|
Post by 1992 on Jan 29, 2018 15:34:54 GMT -5
"Since when can you win a football game by scoring a touchdown?! This is bull ! MY team had more interceptions and ran more yards! I've never watched football before or read the rules but I'm pretty sure this is cheating!"
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 17:43:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 15:43:40 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. If the majority of Americans wanted Trump as president, then he would have won the popular vote. That majority chose either Clinton or, in some capacity, anybody but Trump. The Electoral College is an outdated system that goes against the fabled democracy that the U.S. raves about. The 'popular vote' is a totally irrelevant thing. And if you want to go down this road, Trump handily won the 'popular vote' 49 states. California being the exception. California, which permits Illegal Immigrants to vote due to drivers license laws there. If the race was contended under the popular vote, Trump would have campaigned completely differently, and still won. Hillary was a candidate incapable of winning, had too many skeletons in her closet and ran a simply unwinable campaign. America was deflated by 8 years of Obama, so I doubt any Democrat could have beaten any Republican. She regularly pulled crowds not larger than a few dozen people. She needed to offer up pop musicians to get anybody to take notice of her. Trump regularly sold out massive stadiums by himself. Enthusiasm was high. And for the 1 millionth time, the USA is NOT a Democracy. It's a constitutional Republic.
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Jan 29, 2018 16:23:43 GMT -5
More people would vote if it were a popular vote. People in states that are going a certain way no matter what don't vote if they feel their vote doesn't matter. I know several people on both sides that didn't vote because it didn't matter and wasn't worth the hassle. I don't think Trump wins if more people vote. He made the race ugly and people just wanted it over and a lot didn't vote as turn out was way down. He told coal towns (in swing states)that are dead that he would reopen them, but we have little need for more coal. There have been 57 presidential elections held. 52 out of 57 times the person who won the popular vote also won the presidency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jan 29, 2018 17:02:56 GMT -5
I'm sick of Florida, New Hampshire and Ohio deciding the election. I am in Massachusetts and my vote doesn't matter so I don't vote. The EC is outdated, unnecessary and from another time.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Jan 29, 2018 17:12:42 GMT -5
I'm sick of Florida, New Hampshire and Ohio deciding the election. I am in Massachusetts and my vote doesn't matter so I don't vote. The EC is outdated, unnecessary and from another time. If you go by the popular vote then your vote doesnt matter. Why should I as a presidential candidate go to your city in Mass that has say 50k people when I can just push myself in LA, NY and Chicago and get 30 million votes.
|
|
|
Post by 6 seasons and a movie on Jan 29, 2018 17:26:18 GMT -5
More people would vote if it were a popular vote. People in states that are going a certain way no matter what don't vote if they feel their vote doesn't matter. I know several people on both sides that didn't vote because it didn't matter and wasn't worth the hassle. I don't think Trump wins if more people vote. He made the race ugly and people just wanted it over and a lot didn't vote as turn out was way down. He told coal towns (in swing states)that are dead that he would reopen them, but we have little need for more coal. There have been 57 presidential elections held. 52 out of 57 times the person who won the popular vote also won the presidency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That is why it is still around. More times than not the winner of the popular vote does still win. However, it has put the 2 of the last 3 Presidents if office so it is now being talked about more. It was something that was questioned even before, but few thought change was needed as it really didn't affect any recent elections until Bush/Gore. I remember in a History/Government class in High School before Bush/Gore and the teacher talked about it being something that would likely change during our lifetimes and speculated that it would happen after either the popular vote didn't match results or if a third candidate won a state that wouldn't allow the required EC total to be reached by any candidate.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 29, 2018 17:38:01 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. 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. I very clearly said that votes from one states being worth nearly 4 times the votes from another state is not right.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 29, 2018 20:39:54 GMT -5
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. I very clearly said that votes from one states being worth nearly 4 times the votes from another state is not right. And I explained where you were making your mistake. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. Under the Electoral College individual vote totals don't determine who wins the presidency, electoral votes do. To say that someone else's vote is worth 4 times another's is a logical fallacy. California has 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3. That's the math. California has more sway in the presidential election than 17 others combined. That's the math. You cannot argue that. If you think the system is rigged against big states like California, I'm afraid there isn't much more anyone can do to help you at this point.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 29, 2018 20:45:42 GMT -5
I'm sick of Florida, New Hampshire and Ohio deciding the election. I am in Massachusetts and my vote doesn't matter so I don't vote. The EC is outdated, unnecessary and from another time. 1.) Your vote does count. 2.) Do you know how the electoral college works? I ask because I have found that the only people who say this are the ones who don't understand it. I explained as simply as I could why the U.S. uses the electoral college, and how it works. If you could, read the first post on the first page and tell me exactly and specifically where you disagree. Why exactly do you think the Electoral College is outdated and unnecessary, and what do you think it should be replaced with? And please do not come back and say the popular vote. I've already explained why the popular vote is terrible. If you don't agree, please explain why.
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jan 29, 2018 20:50:30 GMT -5
I'm sick of Florida, New Hampshire and Ohio deciding the election. I am in Massachusetts and my vote doesn't matter so I don't vote. The EC is outdated, unnecessary and from another time. If you go by the popular vote then your vote doesnt matter. Why should I as a presidential candidate go to your city in Mass that has say 50k people when I can just push myself in LA, NY and Chicago and get 30 million votes. Meh, it won't be like that forever. And you go because you, I don't know, care? I can't speak for candidates but were it me (as a normal person running and not a politician) I'd probably go out of my way to go to as many places as possible to see the entire breadth of it all. People in those locations are more connected than they ever have been. You can say that their votes won't matter in that respect but they have access to information and the ability to keep themselves from being disconnected, in the dark and uninformed, not just about the country but about things in life. People choose to live their pretend lifestyles and stay hidden. My issue with it is them trying to dictate the way the rest of the world works so they can live in a bubble. Stepping out of their bubble, their 'popular vote' would matter just as much. Really it gets down to belief systems and I hate to say it but I don't really think it'll ever be improved until people are more aware and less concerned with religions and weird, old school existences. For the record I wouldn't vote for someone that I saw blatantly only campaigning in certain areas, essentially stating that those are the only areas that matter. I think it's naïve and pessimistic to assume that someone running for office wouldn't visit areas with lower populations because they really only need to win NY or LA, but it's pretty naïve of me and overly optimistic to assume they would. Just so it's out in the open and because I'm not really ashamed of it I'm pretty liberal with political leanings and did not vote in the last election.
|
|