• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

DANGER: Supreme Court to decide in terrifying case if electors can ignore state Electoral College results and choose the candidate they want instead.

accel

Member
Sep 11, 2015
890
362
520
Everyone who is for popular vote should ask themselves whether they are fine with the entire Earth voting for global questions. The moment you imagine global voting on anything that matters - like, let's take something universal: gay rights - this very moment when you realize that you are going to be outvoted heavily by folks outside of the woke part of the West, maybe it will finally be seen that the popular vote is not an end-all and be-all.

Traditionally, voting has been by territory. It doesn't matter that Switzerland has less people than France, folks in Switzerland want to live their lives on their land no matter the preferences of people from France. When territories become closer, like individual countries in the EU or even closer, like states in the US, if you try to dissolve the borders wrt voting completely and adopt a popular vote, all you are doing is trading practical benefits of territories feeling valued and contributing on the basis of mutual profit for a theoretical beauty of the popular vote being simpler to express as a number. This does not seem like a good trade at all.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Did you just act like you didn't make your last post?

Bottom line is that you aren't reaching anyone, at least here, it's the same people as before, and both arguments have been presented for years, the likely hood of anyone who is ill-informed and hasn't chosen a side lurking around is .ooo% of the 0th percentile. Especially since it's impeachment distraction day so today is really a bad time.
Based on what?

I generally assume people on the internet are curious yet misinformed to some degree, an excellent combo for providing information they can digest. I include myself in this group. I am curious yet I know I lack information on many topics, so I participate in the discussion to see what can be discovered. This has been the nature of internet culture for as long as I can remember. The purpose of explaining something isn't to get x number of subscribers, hit like and click that bell, etc. That said, every forum has glass walls, so it would be naive to think my replies are only being viewed by the person to which I am replying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Katsura
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
Based on what?

I generally assume people on the internet are curious yet misinformed to some degree, an excellent combo for providing information they can digest. I include myself in this group. I am curious yet I know I lack information on many topics, so I participate in the discussion to see what can be discovered. This has been the nature of internet culture for as long as I can remember. The purpose of explaining something isn't to get x number of subscribers, hit like and click that bell, etc. That said, every forum has glass walls, so it would be naive to think my replies are only being viewed by the person to which I am replying.

This is nice and all but not relevant on the site you are currently on, and the section of said site.

The point which you are stubbornly overlooking isn't that I'm saying he is the only one seeing the replies, the fact you came to that conclusion shows you were skimming over my previous replies instead of reading them, the point was that almost everyone in this section of the forum have likely already chosen sides making it imo pointless. But if you disagree that's fine.
 
H

hariseldon

Unconfirmed Member
Not sure what you mean. I don't think I'm reaching tens of thousands. I'm not posting with the intention of reaching tens of thousands.

To settle this. Not all participants in this thread post. Many participate passively by reading. One can reach some of those people and maybe tempt them out of hiding with a sufficiently interesting discussion. I hope I've interpreted correctly ddp - it's a view that I agree with.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
This is nice and all but not relevant on the site you are currently on, and the section of said site.
I will repeat my previous question: based on what?

The point which you are stubbornly overlooking isn't that I'm saying he is the only one seeing the replies, the fact you came to that conclusion shows you were skimming over my previous replies instead of reading them, the point was that almost everyone in this section of the forum have likely already chosen sides making it imo pointless. But if you disagree that's fine.
I don't disagree with that. I am stating that the number of people participating in this specific sub-forum and the number of people viewing it are two different numbers. You are belaboring a point concocted in your own imagination. I'm not even certain what strawman I am supposed to be defending myself against so if you could explain it, perhaps we can both move on.

Is your argument that my posts won't be viewed by thousands of people? Conceded, and I explained that's not why I post anyway.
Is your argument that my posts will only be viewed by people who've already made up their minds on the topic? Go ahead and back this up because I disagree. Such a suggestion goes against the nature of internet discussion.
 
Aug 24, 2016
8,172
7,261
1,125
I will repeat my previous question: based on what?


I don't disagree with that. I am stating that the number of people participating in this specific sub-forum and the number of people viewing it are two different numbers. You are belaboring a point concocted in your own imagination. I'm not even certain what strawman I am supposed to be defending myself against so if you could explain it, perhaps we can both move on.

Is your argument that my posts won't be viewed by thousands of people? Conceded, and I explained that's not why I post anyway.
Is your argument that my posts will only be viewed by people who've already made up their minds on the topic? Go ahead and back this up because I disagree. Such a suggestion goes against the nature of internet discussion.

There aren't any strawman you're just fog headed. The issue is you are trying to hard to justify the effort you put in.

You're "two different numbers" point is irrelevant. This goes back to you believing the platform is bigger than it actually is, the point you dismissed and evaded before. You're making the illogical assumption that 1000 viewers in a thread with 33 posts has a significant number of ill-informed people that are learning something, yet if they are already looking at this subject and forum section they have MORE likely already picked a side based on whether they believed the media/politician talking points or not. Which is likely why even logged in members aren't participating.

Sure I guess maybe a couple or a few can be exceptions but that's not much. When the impeachment starts up you'll notice much more interest because that's the issue people are divided on because they want to see what the arguments are and if this trial is legitimate or not. You're argument would make much more sense in that scenario, at least on here. But if you feel otherwise please continue.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
There aren't any strawman you're just fog headed. The issue is you are trying to hard to justify the effort you put in.
Most of my effort is throwaway because I'm bored. You are welcome to comb through all of my topics that don't even reach a second page. I don't have any interest in playing this game of "talk Afro out of his headcanon regarding my own internal thoughts" since you have nothing to go on.

You're "two different numbers" point is irrelevant. This goes back to you believing the platform is bigger than it actually is, the point you dismissed and evaded before.
Evaded?

Point out where I thought the platform was bigger than "it actually is". I've repeatedly mentioned that the size of the platform is irrelevant to my standpoint. Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

You're making the illogical assumption that 1000 viewers in a thread with 33 posts has a significant number of ill-informed people that are learning something,
No, I'm simply stating that in a thread with 1000 viewers and 33 posts, there are bound to be observers who are not participating.

You have made assumption that these people are set in their ways, and you continue dodging me when I ask you to back it up. You are fishing for drama.

yet if they are already looking at this subject and forum section they have MORE likely already picked a side based on whether they believed the media/politician talking points or not. Which is likely why even logged in members aren't participating.
Based on what?

Sure I guess maybe a couple or a few can be exceptions but that's not much. When the impeachment starts up you'll notice much more interest because that's the issue people are divided on because they want to see what the arguments are and if this trial is legitimate or not. You're argument would make much more sense in that scenario, at least on here. But if you feel otherwise please continue.
It's fun bantering with you but your lack of reading comprehension, your frantic desire to strawman your conversation partner, and your clumsy grasp of the english language (It is "your argument" not "you're argument") is entertaining. Invest your time into clickbait thread titles and dunking on Freedom Gate. I am out of your league, but I am flattered.
 

Thaedolus

Banned
Jun 9, 2004
11,553
5,713
1,875
This isn't the case at all. Sounds like a talking point from CNN, not a serious argument.

This is the Blue Wall of 2012



This is the vote of 2016. Notice how some states flipped? Why shouldn't they? Several flipped states were "blue wall" states 4 years prior. Switching from blue wall to "deplorable" should've put the Democrats on watch instead of taking these votes for granted. Isn't that your concern, politicians taking votes for granted? When you are guaranteed victory due to the support of dense population centers, you tend to take votes for granted. History is pretty clear on that one.



The complaint about swing states is a complaint against your own proposal of following the popular vote / distribution of electoral votes by popular vote. Instead of swing states, imagine swing cities where the tens-of-millions packed into a dozen cities are pandered to endlessly by politicians. Rural areas would have even less power than they do now.

Remember, it isn't just about rural states but also about rural areas within states. California's rural areas often vote Republican yet never seem to win. Why? Because the dense population centers drown out the will of the outlying counties. It's not like the electoral system only works in the favor of the minority and never works in favor of the majority.


No, the framers were specific about wanting a person to succeed in a given state before they could have a shot at the presidency. If you divvy up electoral votes proportionally by the state's vote it isn't much different than a popular vote and eliminates one of the main reasons for having the electoral college in the first place.


Why is "anyone running for president taking electoral college votes for granted"? As compared to what?

2016 is a wonderful example of how parity between densely-populated areas and rural areas was achieved by our system.

The popular vote was 62,984,828 Trump versus 65,853,514 Hillary, a difference of less than 3 million / 4% of the total. Both candidates received tens of millions of votes.

The vote distribution, however...



If we are sticking with the platitude that the president should be president of "all the country", this shows we received exactly that in 2016.

ok but you understand that the map you’re showing with all that red is mostly empty space, right? I know it’s Trump’s security blanket, but I’m still not seeing how the current system is ensuring vast swaths of the country aren’t ignored when it literally reinforces the incentive to do just that when a state is sufficiently red or blue to think it’s safe.

And really this is only a huge concern because Congress has continued to cede it’s authority to the executive branch since the inception of this government...a rollback to executive powers would mitigate a lot of the issue I take with the current system, but good luck finding a president who runs on limiting their own powers
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
ok but you understand that the map you’re showing with all that red is mostly empty space, right?
Is it empty space or is it less densely populated? There's a difference to the people who actually live there. I know, I know, it's much easier to write it off as "flyover country", but I think the burden is on you to explain why the welfare of our minority populations outside of the megacities should be written off.

I know it’s Trump’s security blanket, but I’m still not seeing how the current system is ensuring vast swaths of the country aren’t ignored when it literally reinforces the incentive to do just that when a state is sufficiently red or blue to think it’s safe.
As the 2016 election proved and as you already pointed out (purple/swing states), a state can be sufficiently red or blue yet still swing to an opponent unexpectedly.

Every campaign must consider where to invest its time. Trump invested some of his time in "flyover country" and was rewarded.

I would encourage you to read the documentation I linked earlier. The framers expressed an overt desire to limit the surges and swings of voting bodies and instead wanted the best officials to judge the best path forward for the country. I will quote the relevant part to save you time:

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?
And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.
Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.

To put it in my own words, the framers understood that we would never, ever have a system that could fairly and reliably represent the best interests of the population at all times.

Knowing this unfortunate inevitability, the framers said "the causes of faction cannot be removed" therefore "relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects". Since eliminating factions would require a betrayal of the very same principles of liberty they wanted to protect, they agreed that the next best option would be to at least limit the effects of factions through the structure of the government.

There has never been a strong desire for pure, popular vote in the USA. The framers debated that exact point at great lengths with one another.

And really this is only a huge concern because Congress has continued to cede it’s authority to the executive branch since the inception of this government...a rollback to executive powers would mitigate a lot of the issue I take with the current system, but good luck finding a president who runs on limiting their own powers
A fair opinion to hold, but largely irrelevant in this discussion. Changing the electoral college while the current executive powers remain in place would make the predicament you're complaining about worse, not better.

It appears you've been conditioned to hate the electoral college but cannot come up with a rational explanation as to why. In fact, all your concerns are helped by the electoral college, as I have pointed out across my previous replies.
 

whitehawk

Banned
Jan 27, 2008
24,815
326
1,345
Canada
Everyone who is for popular vote should ask themselves whether they are fine with the entire Earth voting for global questions. The moment you imagine global voting on anything that matters - like, let's take something universal: gay rights - this very moment when you realize that you are going to be outvoted heavily by folks outside of the woke part of the West, maybe it will finally be seen that the popular vote is not an end-all and be-all.

Traditionally, voting has been by territory. It doesn't matter that Switzerland has less people than France, folks in Switzerland want to live their lives on their land no matter the preferences of people from France. When territories become closer, like individual countries in the EU or even closer, like states in the US, if you try to dissolve the borders wrt voting completely and adopt a popular vote, all you are doing is trading practical benefits of territories feeling valued and contributing on the basis of mutual profit for a theoretical beauty of the popular vote being simpler to express as a number. This does not seem like a good trade at all.
I don't think comparing a national popular vote to some imaginary global popular vote is an apt comparison.

All people want is a fair election for federal issues. American states have lots of power, which is unique to America. Allow the states to keep that power to govern themselves, but for matters of national interest, what state you live in shouldn't dictate how powerful your vote is. A vote in Cali should be counted the same as a vote in Iowa.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
I don't think comparing a national popular vote to some imaginary global popular vote is an apt comparison.

All people want is a fair election for federal issues. American states have lots of power, which is unique to America. Allow the states to keep that power to govern themselves, but for matters of national interest, what state you live in shouldn't dictate how powerful your vote is. A vote in Cali should be counted the same as a vote in Iowa.
The founding fathers had specific reasons for using the electoral college for the selection of a president.

They were clearly aware that the popular vote existed since our system uses the popular vote for other facets of government and they wrote about it at length. Aren't you curious why they decided to use the electoral college instead of the popular vote?

Here, you can even read about it:

 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
46,898
94,827
1,380
The founding fathers had specific reasons for using the electoral college for the selection of a president.

They were clearly aware that the popular vote existed since our system uses the popular vote for other facets of government and they wrote about it at length. Aren't you curious why they decided to use the electoral college instead of the popular vote?

Here, you can even read about it:


Now that is just mean. Breaking the propaganda curated by the establishment cronies that replaced actual government civics taught in schools.
 
Last edited:

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
8,047
4,419
1,230
steamcommunity.com
I don't think comparing a national popular vote to some imaginary global popular vote is an apt comparison.

All people want is a fair election for federal issues. American states have lots of power, which is unique to America. Allow the states to keep that power to govern themselves, but for matters of national interest, what state you live in shouldn't dictate how powerful your vote is. A vote in Cali should be counted the same as a vote in Iowa.

Federal government was only to resolve differences between states and as a united front when dealing with foreign entities. It was never meant to deal with interpersonal or most social issues. It is why states were set up to be on equal footing in the first place. Government of the people directly was meant to be small and local, and never ever at the federal level. The simple fact that New York has any say on border control in Arizona is bullshit, since they are not the ones that have to deal with any concequences. If you think California and New York should be telling Iowa how to grow corn, then keep pushing.

State rights have been eroded down to almost nothing as it is, now they are pushing to have 2 or 3 coastal population centers tell someone in Montana or Alaska what's best for them.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Banned
Sep 29, 2014
8,057
14,862
1,020
This is like coin flipping in Iowa to determine the elector. Why do Dems want to change to rules to make it easier for them to win, instead of trying to appeal to a broader cross section of Americans to win?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
46,898
94,827
1,380
This is like coin flipping in Iowa to determine the elector. Why do Dems want to change to rules to make it easier for them to win, instead of trying to appeal to a broader cross section of Americans to win?

Lazy authoritarians, much like the people they draw to them?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and Tesseract
Jul 26, 2009
3,143
5,561
1,230
ok but you understand that the map you’re showing with all that red is mostly empty space, right?
It was also mostly “empty space” when the Native Americans owned it, wasn’t it? Are you okay with Manifest Destiny, historically speaking?

The rule of the mob is not generally the right thing. You need to come up with a better argument.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Oner

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
28,367
1,166
1,005
This is an interesting case. Forcing them to vote the way the states vote inundates them, which is how most people look at the position. (There have been very few faithless electors historically, at that.)

What you'll see here depending on the ruling are groups who want to trash the EC entirely latch on to a ruling against faithless electors. If indeed the will of the state collectively supersedes the judgment of the elector(s), then the EC itself doesn't justify its reasoning for existence.

The constitutional intent was to select unbiased, impartial citizens from the population to convene and elect the executive, which goes away if they are not individually empowered to make their own rational choice.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
This is an interesting case. Forcing them to vote the way the states vote inundates them, which is how most people look at the position. (There have been very few faithless electors historically, at that.)

What you'll see here depending on the ruling are groups who want to trash the EC entirely latch on to a ruling against faithless electors. If indeed the will of the state collectively supersedes the judgment of the elector(s), then the EC itself doesn't justify its reasoning for existence.

The constitutional intent was to select unbiased, impartial citizens from the population to convene and elect the executive, which goes away if they are not individually empowered to make their own rational choice.
lol the purpose of the electoral college was not chiefly for a tiny group of citizens to "make their own rational choice".

It was to ensure bureaucracy was split. You have one group counting votes, and you have another "delivering" the votes by electoral college. The early framers explicitly said this role should not be fulfilled by a bureaucratic body because it would be more easily corrupted / subverted.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

The idea was that even if foreign powers somehow gained control over portions of our bureaucracy, the electoral body would be too much of a "moving target" to reliably corrupt. Imagine if, for instance, if Russia had attempted to install a phony puppet into office and were attempting to "democratically" install their puppet in an ongoing coup, the EC would be able to vote for the "true American" to save the presidency at the 11th hour.

Yet you want to do away with it? Huh.

The EC was also intended as a general deterrent against corruption and bribes.

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

You don't actually know what you are asking for when you suggest it be changed. You would be undermining the integrity of our elections, which apparently is super important to Democrats or something.
 

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
28,367
1,166
1,005
lol the purpose of the electoral college was not chiefly for a tiny group of citizens to "make their own rational choice".

It was to ensure bureaucracy was split. You have one group counting votes, and you have another "delivering" the votes by electoral college. The early framers explicitly said this role should not be fulfilled by a bureaucratic body because it would be more easily corrupted / subverted.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

The idea was that even if foreign powers somehow gained control over portions of our bureaucracy, the electoral body would be too much of a "moving target" to reliably corrupt. Imagine if, for instance, if Russia had attempted to install a phony puppet into office and were attempting to "democratically" install their puppet in an ongoing coup, the EC would be able to vote for the "true American" to save the presidency at the 11th hour.

Yet you want to do away with it? Huh.

The EC was also intended as a general deterrent against corruption and bribes.

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

You don't actually know what you are asking for when you suggest it be changed. You would be undermining the integrity of our elections, which apparently is super important to Democrats or something.

I never, anywhere, said that I personally wanted the EC to be changed or even done away with. That is an assumption you projected on to me. I'm merely saying if the SC rules that electoral college voters must vote in accordance with their state, it inundates them. There would be no reason to convene. And that people who do want the EC modified or abolished entirely would use their figurehead existence to argue the entire system is unnecessary since the core component of a body of electors outside the bureaucracy has been neutralized.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,263
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
I never, anywhere, said that I personally wanted the EC to be changed or even done away with. That is an assumption you projected on to me. I'm merely saying if the SC rules that electoral college voters must vote in accordance with their state, it inundates them. There would be no reason to convene. And that people who do want the EC modified or abolished entirely would use their figurehead existence to argue the entire system is unnecessary since the core component of a body of electors outside the bureaucracy has been neutralized.
But don't existing faithless elector laws already on the books "inundate" the EC already?


Why would applying this at the federal level be different?

There were 7 faithless electors in the 2016 election, the most since 1912. In our polarized federal gov't, would you want a democrat losing a state or even an entire election because a disgruntled republican went faithless elector and his/her state didn't have any laws against voting against your pledge?

If it happened in Texas, which Dems claim is turning blue, where a Democrat won the state but the faithless electors voted for the Republican anyway, would you be singing this tune on the Supreme Court's ruling?

It's not as though what is being suggested here is without merit and without argument:

 

Thaedolus

Banned
Jun 9, 2004
11,553
5,713
1,875
It was also mostly “empty space” when the Native Americans owned it, wasn’t it? Are you okay with Manifest Destiny, historically speaking?

The rule of the mob is not generally the right thing. You need to come up with a better argument.

What the fuck are you even talking about? How do you go from what I said- which was a comment about the map being a geographical representation that is disproportionate to the population that lives there- to all this other bullshit?