• 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.

Democrats trying to bypass Electoral System with popular vote for 2020 election with Compact (12 states signed)

Sejan

Member
Sep 28, 2018
799
972
490
One strategy that has been proposed is to pass conditional laws that only kick in if all the other states also sign them. Which doesn't seem like it would be too difficult if there were some education on the subject, but when you do it after a huge EC upset, you end up with a lot of people out there that think the EC helps them, rather than it being more or less a product of the winds.

So now this proposal is a sort of compromise to get it done where you don't need every state to sign, just enough to essentially render the rest moot. This is easier to get done, but it's also kind of dangerous because the number of states and the number of electors can change.

Look, if you want to be pedantic about it, "random" may not be technically correct but it's arbitrary, ever-changing, and bearing no particular allegiance to any party or demographic, which, for the purpose of this conversation, is essentially random.

Sure, it’s a compromise that is more possible, but it is also a solution that is worse than the status quo, in my opinion.

As I said before, I find any attempt at a popular vote to be nakedly partisan in its intentions. Though it may theoretically be more represtative of the country as a whole, I believe that it would be less meaningfully representative.

As an example, consider minority majority districts today. That minority may be small in comparison to the majority in the state, but we purposefully build our voting districts to represent them in a meaningful way. The electoral college is very similar to this in practice. Sometimes the little guy needs a bigger voice than others to ensure that the country is represented in a meaningful way.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
458
240
Sure, it’s a compromise that is more possible, but it is also a solution that is worse than the status quo, in my opinion.
Are you sure this isn't just because the result of the status quo was convenient to you the couple times this discussion was relevant? Like I said, these conversations don't seem to revolve around the relevance of Deleware's politics to the national stage, but rather on the fact that one party thinks this system helps them more than it actually does.

As I said before, I find any attempt at a popular vote to be nakedly partisan in its intentions.
Anyone approaching this as a partisan is making a major error in their understanding of this system and how it works though. I'm sure there are Democrats dumb enough to believe the EC is naturally skewed in Republicans favor, just as there are clearly some Republicans in this thread who have a similarly poor understanding, but the reality of the situation is that this is not a partisan issue.

Though it may theoretically be more represtative of the country as a whole, I believe that it would be less meaningfully representative.
Would you feel like that if Florida and Ohio drift blue over the next decade and the EC favors democrats again like it did in '08 and '12? What in particular is being better represented?

As an example, consider minority majority districts today. That minority may be small in comparison to the majority in the state, but we purposefully build our voting districts to represent them in a meaningful way. The electoral college is very similar to this in practice.

So I have two real issues with this comparison:
1) In practice, district lines are often drawn in a way to purposefully disenfranchise voters, and overwhelmingly this comes at the expense of minority-majority areas.
2) State borders are not like this. They don't get redrawn and weren't drawn over meaningful political and demographic concerns in the first place, so when one state or another becomes more of a swing state, it's more to do with population trends over time -- New York retirees moving to Florida have skewed the state blue, for example. That these sorts of things have a significant impact on our election outcomes seems silly to me.
 
Last edited:

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,493
3,365
480
Popular vote.
Loose voter id laws.
Sanctuary Cities.
Open Borders.

Its almost like the Dems are up to something...but i can't quite put my finger on it :unsure:
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,128
563
1,605
USA
Why


No it wasn't. Why do people say dumb shit like this without even stopping for a quarter of a second to think if it's vaguely coherent?

The EC does not protect rural areas, nor was it designed to. In fact, in states that have a couple of large cities, like New York, Illinois, or California, it completely disenfranchises the rural regions.

Yes, the EC designotes a minimum vote for a couple rural states below the population threshold but these states have never decided an election in US history. Meanwhile, assigning the rather substantial rural vote of a large state like California could.

The EC also does not skew in the favor of Republicans, at least not reliably so. Obama had an EC advantage in both elections, it just wasn't controversial because he also won the popular vote.

The EC was designed to do one thing and one thing only: Serve as a safeguard to override the popular vote in case they elected an unqualified idiot based on his popular appeal. And it failed at that job, so why the fuck would we need it?

Lol, I think you quoted the wrong post 😉
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
Sure, it’s a compromise that is more possible, but it is also a solution that is worse than the status quo, in my opinion.

As I said before, I find any attempt at a popular vote to be nakedly partisan in its intentions. Though it may theoretically be more represtative of the country as a whole, I believe that it would be less meaningfully representative.

As an example, consider minority majority districts today. That minority may be small in comparison to the majority in the state, but we purposefully build our voting districts to represent them in a meaningful way. The electoral college is very similar to this in practice. Sometimes the little guy needs a bigger voice than others to ensure that the country is represented in a meaningful way.
Gerrymandering is a hell of a drug. The fact that you enter this discussion convinced of your opposition's intents before seeing their words speaks volumes.

I do like your belief in the American system of government's ability to represent the little guy in any meaningful way. It really shows... optimism. :)
Lol, I think you quoted the wrong post 😉
I mean you are daring to suggest a system of popular voting for president can you blame them for being so upset that they made a mistake?

Geez get some manners.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
But is that true with a popular vote?
I get that they live in essentially the same area. But does that mean they're similar enough in their beliefs to essentially cancel-out any other populations?
Let's take a really simple example - just a hypothetical. The national park system is running over budget. The federal government has two proposals. The first is to increase the amount of money going to national parks by reducing the budget from somewhere else (usually education), while the other is to sell part of the land to private companies. One of the private companies provides energy to San Francisco, and plans to use the land to build a hydroelectric dam, creating a source of renewable, clean energy to San Francisco, reducing their power bills by 30%.

In this situation, the people in San Francisco have a pretty good reason to vote one way that seems like a win-win situation. Clean, renewable energy AND more money in their pockets. However, increasing the budget for the national park system will make a huge difference for animal preservation, preventing forest fires, and creating new destinations for tourists. There are national parks in 29 states, but the states that would benefit the most from improved national parks are also the least populated.

Alaska has a national park that is over 8 million acres. Alaska has a population of 739,795 people, or roughly 8% of San Francisco's metropolitan population. If San Francisco wanted a smaller power bill, there's shit all Alaska could do to change that.

Wouldn't a popular vote, which is based solely on a per-person selection, cancel out any type of electoral/district/state advantage?
It depends on the issue. There are issues that are specific to certain states. For instance, California, Florida, and Texas has enough people to win basically every election issue, so something that is important to those three states (like off shore drilling or immigration) would go the way they want every single time. Trump's immigration promises probably made a bigger difference than people think it did.

I've questioned this for years. How is a representative inherently better than my actual vote?
I don't know that it is inherently better. I think the electoral college is an imperfect system, but what little safeguards it has to protect all the other states from the majority rules of the larger states is better than nothing. Wyoming has 1.4% of the population of California, but 5% of their voting power. If anything, I think the less populous states deserve to have more electoral votes, or to put a cap on the other states (like say 25 votes). I don't think California and Texas deserve to have a disproportionate say in US politics, and I think both of them are basically ruining the country.
 

I_D

Member
Dec 22, 2007
4,457
751
1,390
Let's take a really simple example - just a hypothetical.
I had a whole big response to this, but it kept just jumping back and forth and going in circles, so I'll simplify:
I like your points. You make it clear an electoral college is necessary to give the little-guys a voice. While that was pretty obvious throughout history, you've made it clear it's still necessary.

So, I come back to one of my original questions: "Should the majority-vote of a country win?"
I can see why some argue for the 'Good of the Country' (electoral college), and why some argue for the 'Good of the People' (popular vote). My question is regarding which one should win over the other, from an ethical perspective.

And it gets even more complex because your example, which was perfectly realistic, implies damaging one field of business to help another field of business; and damaging one location to help another location.
But, then again, if the vaaaaaaast majority of people are okay with damaging (financially, not actual harm) certain businesses and locations to help others... is that wrong?

So yeah, I don't really have an answer. Hence the going in circles.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
But, then again, if the vaaaaaaast majority of people are okay with damaging (financially, not actual harm) certain businesses and locations to help others... is that wrong?
Let me give you a practical answer from US history. In the 1830s, the northern states held more political power than the southern ones. To this end, they levied a rather damaging tariff against exports that overwhelmingly affected the south. The south was livid. The even did a walkout during congress (during which the north held a vote without any southern senators). Finally, South Carolina decided to test out the process of nullification - that is the state’s ability to override the federal government and not ratify the tariff. This did not go over well with the federal government, one thing led to another and South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union. President Andrew Jackson sent down a bunch of troops and threatened war on SC if they left. 30 years later, the first state to secede during the Civil War was South Carolina. This was known as the Nullification Crisis, and this was the true beginning of the Civil War.

The morality of such things are irrelevant. The practical effects can literally lead to civil wars.
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,562
36,243
885
39
But, then again, if the vaaaaaaast majority of people are okay with damaging (financially, not actual harm) certain businesses and locations to help others... is that wrong?

it is selfish. likely misguided as well, since the urban coasts are the media centers of the world. they have the largest megaphone, their views are already over represented. i would argue that any loss in EC seats is more than made up for the bourgeois coasts dominating the national & international narrative.

frankly why would someone living in New York City have any clue what it's like living in Louisiana? why should someone in California have a say what goes on in Georgia? why should we assume California has it together in the first place, given that they are consistently & massively in debt? geography plays a huge role, something that gets overlooked when you just look at the numbers of people.

all states lean on one another to some degree. it forms the basis of our union. so in many ways we already allow this to an extent on a federal level. this is why we have three branches of government. so there really is little reason to change and a lot of reason not to.
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,562
36,243
885
39
another thing to consider is that most rural states have higher minority populations than the more urban states. in that case, eliminating the EC would actually disenfranchise these people.
 
Last edited:

Sejan

Member
Sep 28, 2018
799
972
490
Gerrymandering is a hell of a drug. The fact that you enter this discussion convinced of your opposition's intents before seeing their words speaks volumes.

I do like your belief in the American system of government's ability to represent the little guy in any meaningful way. It really shows... optimism. :)

I mean you are daring to suggest a system of popular voting for president can you blame them for being so upset that they made a mistake?

Geez get some manners.

You can clearly see the intent of the legislation simply by looking at the states that have passed it thus far.

Our system does a good job of representing the little guy because of compromises such as the EC and equal power in the senate. The trouble here is not the system itself, but the people that implement the system. A democracy demands that we vote selfishly. A representative government has more abilty to have our votes considered and have our representatives translate their constituents’ votes into legislation. Unfortunately, our party leadership (on both sides) has completely and utterly failed us in this regard.
 
Last edited:

danielberg

Neophyte
Jun 20, 2018
2,718
3,180
410
Popular vote.
Loose voter id laws.
Sanctuary Cities.
Open Borders.

Its almost like the Dems are up to something...but i can't quite put my finger on it :unsure:


 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
You can clearly see the intent of the legislation simply by looking at the states that have passed it thus far.

Our system does a good job of representing the little guy because of compromises such as the EC and equal power in the senate. The trouble here is not the system itself, but the people that implement the system. A democracy demands that we vote selfishly. A representative government has more abilty to have our votes considered and have our representatives translate their constituents’ votes into legislation. Unfortunately, our party leadership (on both sides) has completely and utterly failed us in this regard.
Given that our party leadership has completely and utterly failed us I hope you can at least empathize with those who feel a need for change in how representatives are decided. I feel strongly that the minority best served by the current system are lobbyists, anyone else benefiting is incidental.

Granted, a purely democratic alternative is not a fix-all solution, but with all the vitriol in this thread I was at least hoping that there could be some understanding on why the sides felt the way they did.
 

wzy

Member
Dec 29, 2018
541
599
385
Given that our party leadership has completely and utterly failed us I hope you can at least empathize with those who feel a need for change in how representatives are decided. I feel strongly that the minority best served by the current system are lobbyists, anyone else benefiting is incidental.

Granted, a purely democratic alternative is not a fix-all solution, but with all the vitriol in this thread I was at least hoping that there could be some understanding on why the sides felt the way they did.

There's nothing stopping people from advocating for change at a state level, except the fact that it's actually possible and the next logical step is work.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
There's nothing stopping people from advocating for change at a state level, except the fact that it's actually possible and the next logical step is work.
Aye, the only thing stopping people from enacting electoral reform is laziness.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,626
3,441
515
I think the less populous states deserve to have more electoral votes, or to put a cap on the other states (like say 25 votes). I don't think California and Texas deserve to have a disproportionate say in US politics, and I think both of them are basically ruining the country.
This.

Vast welfare to those who are least fit to reproduce the most, and an attempt to ensure the masses of least fit overpower the elite structures, aka, the systems established by the successful, by the fittest?

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.-John Adams
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -James Madison

We know right now what democracy would lead to...
Socialist policies, open borders, uncontrolled generosity through debt and massive taxation, that will destroy the country.
 
Last edited:

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
8,053
4,426
1,230
steamcommunity.com
In the United States, the federalist system emerged because the states evolved from separate colonies, which had diverse populations and different needs. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned that state governments, not the national government, would be the main unit of government for citizens on a day-to-day basis. The federal government would provide for common defense of national sovereignty, resolve disputes between states, and be a common front for foreign policy as ratified by the member states.

Over time, the federal government has overstepped it's authority and eroded state rights to the point that people now think a federal election is about individuals... it isn't, and was never meant to be. While senate has equal representation of every state regardless of size, the Connecticut compromise split congress in half, one based on equal representation so we don't all dog pile on Rhode Island.... and house of representatives which is allocated based on population since in some, but not all, cases that is the proper way of deciding things.

Currently;
States have say in judicial appointments through congress, which already account for both state equality and population dispersion.
States have say over congress both equally (senate) and population sensitive (house)
States have say over Executive branch (via electoral college, which ironically is HIGHLY weighted by population, to the point of some states aren't even campaigned in already!)

Going to strictly popular vote, bypasses all state rights completely and basically makes New York and California the only voice on an entire branch of government. Densely populated areas most often have completely different geographical and infrastructural pressures and rarely consider, or completely ignore, the needs of anyone outside of those small regions.
 

I_D

Member
Dec 22, 2007
4,457
751
1,390
Let me give you a practical answer from US history. In the 1830s, the northern states held more political power than the southern ones. To this end, they levied a rather damaging tariff against exports that overwhelmingly affected the south. The south was livid. The even did a walkout during congress (during which the north held a vote without any southern senators). Finally, South Carolina decided to test out the process of nullification - that is the state’s ability to override the federal government and not ratify the tariff. This did not go over well with the federal government, one thing led to another and South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union. President Andrew Jackson sent down a bunch of troops and threatened war on SC if they left. 30 years later, the first state to secede during the Civil War was South Carolina. This was known as the Nullification Crisis, and this was the true beginning of the Civil War.

The morality of such things are irrelevant. The practical effects can literally lead to civil wars.

Not arguing; just questioning.

The Electoral College already existed, I think, by that point, so is it a comparable analogy? Also, if the EC was already in effect, yet still led to a Civil War, wouldn't that support the idea of a different system? Or, if the EC wasn't in effect yet, wouldn't that suggest that the EC helped lead to the current situation we're in; thus suggesting a different system may be more viable?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting a popular vote is the only different system, but it does seem like the EC has a pretty fair share of issues.


it is selfish. likely misguided as well, since the urban coasts are the media centers of the world. they have the largest megaphone, their views are already over represented. i would argue that any loss in EC seats is more than made up for the bourgeois coasts dominating the national & international narrative.

frankly why would someone living in New York City have any clue what it's like living in Louisiana? why should someone in California have a say what goes on in Georgia? why should we assume California has it together in the first place, given that they are consistently & massively in debt? geography plays a huge role, something that gets overlooked when you just look at the numbers of people.

all states lean on one another to some degree. it forms the basis of our union. so in many ways we already allow this to an extent on a federal level. this is why we have three branches of government. so there really is little reason to change and a lot of reason not to.

I'm fully aware that I'm tip-toeing on appealing to the masses, by the way, so I'm not really suggesting or supporting any system. I'm just questioning since I think it's a part of the government that could use some work, as evidenced by this very thread.

As I said when I started, I don't trust the technology yet. However, if internet access was widely available, much moreso than it currently is, could that potentially eliminate the 'megaphone' effect, and potentially make the popular vote a more viable option? I feel like we're seeing hints of it already, with previously-niche groups becoming larger and larger (everything from the Tea Party to Antifa to the Proud Boys, etc.).

I get that a ton of people living in one particular area may have different concerns than a bunch of people spread out over thousands of miles. And after checking the numbers, the dense areas of the country quite significantly outnumber the outliers, so they wouldn't really give a shit about outlier-problems.

This kinda sounds like more of a federal-vs-state issue to me, but I can still see where you're going.



Using the Civil War as an example is a bit iffy, because a massive portion of that war related to human-rights issues, which rightly deserved to be called out. As the country is in its current state, I'm cautiously optimistic that any issues rural areas brought up to Congress probably wouldn't be particularly controversial, thus giving them plenty of voice when using a popular vote.

But again, I'm not really arguing either way. I just don't really see the bad side to either option, which is why I'm questioning why we've chosen one over the other.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
Not arguing; just questioning.

The Electoral College already existed, I think, by that point, so is it a comparable analogy? Also, if the EC was already in effect, yet still led to a Civil War, wouldn't that support the idea of a different system? Or, if the EC wasn't in effect yet, wouldn't that suggest that the EC helped lead to the current situation we're in; thus suggesting a different system may be more viable?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting a popular vote is the only different system, but it does seem like the EC has a pretty fair share of issues.
It doesn't really have anything to do with the electoral college. It was just an example of what happens when power gets concentrated into a small group that lords that power over a minority that is unable to do anything about it.

However, if internet access was widely available, much moreso than it currently is, could that potentially eliminate the 'megaphone' effect, and potentially make the popular vote a more viable option?
I'll be honest, as a programmer and an ex-system administrator, I wouldn't trust voting over the internet at all. Ever.

This kinda sounds like more of a federal-vs-state issue to me, but I can still see where you're going.
This true and it could be alleviated by giving back greater power to the states rather than concentrating it in a federal government. I think that's where we are going. The problem with the Nullification Crisis is that Andrew Jackson decided it at the end of a rifle. If there had been an opportunity to debate the issue, it's very likely that cooler heads would've prevailed, states would've regained some of their independence, and the Civil War would've never happened.

Using the Civil War as an example is a bit iffy, because a massive portion of that war related to human-rights issues, which rightly deserved to be called out.
That's.... a different subject for a different time. Just know that the Nullification Crisis was the seed the Civil War really started from, regardless of what it became about later. Without that event, the Civil War probably wouldn't have happened. The slavery thing was an issue, but you have to understand that the North and South had been going at it for 30 years at that point, and it was basically a powder keg ready to explode. If it wasn't slavery, it would've been something else, sooner than later.
 
Feb 22, 2018
3,940
5,166
815
China
If this got anywhere, it would simply de-legitimize the outcome in the eyes of the many states with smaller populations, more rural states which comprise a large portion of the territory and resource base. It would break the union and lead to this:




Essentially, anyone proposing this is an internal enemy of the US, seeking to dissolve the country. Certain competing powers are pleased.
 
Last edited:

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
31,451
11,069
1,580
The EC is an undemocratic system. Popular vote is only way to have real democracy.

Naw, let them keep the EC. When Texas goes blue within the next 15 years due to the growing hispanic population (more than double the rate of whites) they'll be begging to get rid of it. And we'll say no.

You can see their desperation in picking as many judicial appointments as possible. Its become a huge issue on the right because they see the clock. Tick tock.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,738
19,797
705
Naw, let them keep the EC. When Texas goes blue within the next 15 years due to the growing hispanic population (more than double the rate of whites) they'll be begging to get rid of it. And we'll say no.

You can see their desperation in picking as many judicial appointments as possible. Its become a huge issue on the right because they see the clock. Tick tock.
Let them keep the EC becuase eventually Texas will turn blue

So basically all this talk about the EC being flawed and unfair is bullshit? This is about democrats losing, and they don't know how to flip states other than bringing in new Hispanic voters who they hope will vote straight blue. Petty and pathetic
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
31,451
11,069
1,580
they don't know how to flip states other than bringing in new Hispanic voters who they hope will vote straight blue.

I wouldn't say that. One of the hallmarks of the 2018 midterm was that dems played more to local sentiments rather than a 1 size fits all strategy. If the dems manage to turn Michigan back to blue in 2020 in won't be because of the like 500 mexicans who live in detroit lol. And your average Texas hispanic is likely more conservative than your average California hispanic, especially with respect to guns and abortion so its not quite one monolithic block. But in the end its just numbers, and those numbers are going up.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,626
3,441
515
Naw, let them keep the EC. When Texas goes blue within the next 15 years due to the growing hispanic population (more than double the rate of whites) they'll be begging to get rid of it. And we'll say no.

You can see their desperation in picking as many judicial appointments as possible. Its become a huge issue on the right because they see the clock. Tick tock.
I wouldn't say that. One of the hallmarks of the 2018 midterm was that dems played more to local sentiments rather than a 1 size fits all strategy. If the dems manage to turn Michigan back to blue in 2020 in won't be because of the like 500 mexicans who live in detroit lol. And your average Texas hispanic is likely more conservative than your average California hispanic, especially with respect to guns and abortion so its not quite one monolithic block. But in the end its just numbers, and those numbers are going up.
And look at california with feces and needles in the streets mass homelessness, and people wanting to leave by the droves, to see what the policies they'll vote for do.

The democrats appear to want both open borders and increased welfare, with increased taxation, an untenable position. Welfare itself, you have the problem that unless reproduction is regulated, this is basically subsidizing the least able to function in society to reproduce the most. All the while people with common sense to restrict reproduction in the face of rising cost of living and limited earnings, restrict their reproduction. Increasing taxes will only result in ever more restriction from those intelligent and knowledgeable enough to want the best for themselves and any potential kids.

These are dysgenic policies, they are in essence enemies of mankind, enemies of the nation, and a threat to human civilization, hope the rumored harshness ahead puts them in their place.

You are subsidizing child abuse and the creation of future criminals.
Upon entering Preston's apartment, officers found his other three sons -- a 2-year-old, 5-year-old and the 3-year-old's twin brother -- sitting on a filthy floor. Police said the boys seemed to communicate using gestures, body language and screams. They also called one another "Robert" and did not know their own names, according an arrest warrant affidavit.
"The children do not appear to have been socialized in a normal manner and it appears they have had limited contact with anyone outside of their immediate family," an officer wrote in the affidavit.

Police said the apartment was unfurnished, strewn with liquor bottles and reeking of feces. Officers also found the oven on and a malnourished puppy in a closet.
“The kitchen sink was about to overflow with stagnant water that smelled like a dead animal, old food was floating in the water and the water had become opaque,” the affidavit said.
https://www.foxcarolina.com/police-...cle_86dd2658-657b-5bbb-863f-6530884f472d.html
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,519
1,610
He/him
When it was created, the electoral college was 100% necessary. In today's world, I would agree it's still necessary; but I just don't know for how long.

In theory, with proper access to technology, a pure popular vote would be the way to go, wouldn't it?
I don't have enough confidence in our current software and hardware to completely rely on it just yet. But, if we're talking pure ethical dilemmas here...
If every single vote is 100% accounted for, and access to the voting machines is easy enough, and the entire country has access to reliable and convenient internet to watch campaigns, I don't see the issue with the popular vote ruling over the electoral vote.

Didn’t Trump win something like 95% of all counties but lose the popular vote overall? Do you not see that as a problem? Why should all power be concentrated in a handful of counties?
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
31,451
11,069
1,580
And look at california with feces and needles in the streets mass homelessness, and people wanting to leave by the droves, to see what the policies they'll vote for do.

The democrats appear to want both open borders and increased welfare, with increased taxation, an untenable position. Welfare itself, you have the problem that unless reproduction is regulated, this is basically subsidizing the least able to function in society to reproduce the most. All the while people with common sense to restrict reproduction in the face of rising cost of living and limited earnings, restrict their reproduction. Increasing taxes will only result in ever more restriction from those intelligent and knowledgeable enough to want the best for themselves and any potential kids.

These are dysgenic policies, they are in essence enemies of mankind, enemies of the nation, and a threat to human civilization, hope the rumored harshness ahead puts them in their place.

You are subsidizing child abuse and the creation of future criminals.

San Francisco is a pretty special type of scenario created through poorly thought out housing policy, environmental conditions that make it attractive for homeless and layman alike, and having the economic nexus known as Silicon Valley creating mass income disparities between the haves and have nots.

And for the record, all heavily populated US cities are left-leaning. Its more of a universal city issue as opposed to a left vs right issue. The most populated right-leaning city I can think of is...Jacksonville, Florida? And that has some of the highest crime and homelessness in the state same as most other big cities.

As for the rest of your doom and gloom, its going to be much worse than anything you envision. You are going to have to press 1 for English a lot more often. Corpses of piñatas will litter the streets. You'll have more access to authentic mexican cuisine leading to higher fart rates per capita that will rapidly accelerate global warming. You better get rosetta stone while you can because its going to be biblical.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
San Francisco is a pretty special type of scenario created through poorly thought out housing policy, environmental conditions that make it attractive for homeless and layman alike, and having the economic nexus known as Silicon Valley creating mass income disparities between the haves and have nots.
It's not just San Francisco. LA has a significant homeless problem that is so absurd that you literally have to step over homeless people.

And for the record, all heavily populated US cities are left-leaning. Its more of a universal city issue as opposed to a left vs right issue. The most populated right-leaning city I can think of is...Jacksonville, Florida? And that has some of the highest crime and homelessness in the state same as most other big cities.
Maybe Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Las Vegas? Nashville?

Personally, I think the reason why large cities are left leaning is because with no voter ID laws, unscrupulous sorts can get a lot of people to vote illegally without being caught. You try driving a bus full of homeless people to vote in a city with a population of 8,000.

I'm only half kidding. The reason why big cities lean left is because a lot of their needs are taken care of. They don't need to drive an hour to the nearest hospital. They don't have to dispose of their own trash, clean septic tanks, shop at a Dollar General, or anything like that. They are basically house cats deciding that the house cat life is appropriate for all cats - for it is enlightened and superior - and the outdoor cats are monsters for hunting their own food and getting into fights.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040
I posted this in a different thread like yesterday, so I'll just repost here.

The Electoral College is incredibly important to our democratic republic.

First, the idea that Hillary would have won is entirely incorrect. If we based our vote on the popular vote, turn out would be completely different because, for example, Republicans would turn out more in guaranteed Democratic states like California. It would have been an entirely different game with an entirely different vote.

Second, if we based elections on popular votes politicians would completely ignore the needs of small states like Rhode Island in favor of large states like California. Money, favors, legislation and everything else would favor the needs of population centers and ignore not just rural areas, but entire States and sections of the nation.

Third, majority rule ends badly time and time again in history. Minorities end up getting ignored. The Electoral College actually amplifies votes that might otherwise go unheard.

There's a reason we have the Electoral College, and there's a reason some politicians want to get rid of it. Do not trust their motivations. The ramifications would drastically hurt this country.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040
But you live in a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.

Or democratic republic, but yeah, i like either descriptor. This recent propaganda that we should have a direct democracy is troubling. While not perfect, the Electoral College is a rather ingenious way to solve a multitude of problems at the same time, first and foremost representation of everyone.

People keep championing this idea that if only, if only we had direct democracy, the peoples voice would have been heard and HRC would be president, but as I just recently posted above, not even that is a given.

More importantly, the Electoral Collage amplifies minority votes. Direct democracy, on the other hand, silences them.

I'm starting to feel like I'm living in the twilight zone where half the county has forgotten how things like math work. Hey, guys, let's sign onto something that essentially gifts all of our votes to California, they clearly know what's best for the country.

I guess I'm not surprised the Democrats now want mob rule, they sure as hell like mob justice.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,519
1,610
He/him
Or democratic republic, but yeah, i like either descriptor. This recent propaganda that we should have a direct democracy is troubling. While not perfect, the Electoral College is a rather ingenious way to solve a multitude of problems at the same time, first and foremost representation of everyone.

People keep championing this idea that if only, if only we had direct democracy, the peoples voice would have been heard and HRC would be president, but as I just recently posted above, not even that is a given.

More importantly, the Electoral Collage amplifies minority votes. Direct democracy, on the other hand, silences them.

I'm starting to feel like I'm living in the twilight zone where half the county has forgotten how things like math work. Hey, guys, let's sign onto something that essentially gifts all of our votes to California, they clearly know what's best for the country.

I guess I'm not surprised the Democrats now want mob rule, they sure as hell like mob justice.

If you had direct democracy, a whole lot of things would have been done differently during the 2016 campaign. Both players knew the rules of the game and played accordingly. The complaints about the popular vote are just the participation trophy generation throwing a tantrum and flipping over the table because they lost and don't know how to handle it.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,519
1,610
He/him
Yep, I’m on board with this.

1 person, 1 vote. To be against this is to be against democracy.

Please clarify which kind of democracy you are referring to and why you think it should replace the current constitutional republic. Representative democracy? Direct democracy? What do you mean?

I feel like a basic understanding of civics should be a pre-requisite to making broad statements like this.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,567
411
1,350
There's actually no democracies in the world today if you want to get really tedious.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,519
1,610
He/him
We are a republic. Even the Greeks hated the flaws of democracy.

But hey, don't let that college degree stand in the way of a grade-school understanding of the US gov't.

Ah, but he was clever enough to include the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose condition, so you’re clearly against democracy. You wouldn’t want to be against democracy, would you?

A switch to direct democracy aka mob rule would be the end of the United States as we know it.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,519
1,610
He/him
There's actually no democracies in the world today if you want to get really tedious.

Pointing out the difference between a constitutional republic and a direct democracy is far from tedious. You would only think that if you didn’t understand the distinction yourself.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,567
411
1,350
Pointing out the difference between a constitutional republic and a direct democracy is far from tedious. You would only think that if you didn’t understand the distinction yourself.

I obviously understand. I just don't think it matters for 99.99 per cent of discussions.

the USA is a constitutional republic with numerous democratic elements. If people want to advocate changes to a system then they're more than welcome to.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,408
47,519
1,610
He/him
I obviously understand. I just don't think it matters for 99.99 per cent of discussions.

the USA is a constitutional republic with numerous democratic elements. If people want to advocate changes to a system then they're more than welcome to.

If the discussion is about replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote, it absolutely matters. In fact, I would say it matters more than any other factor I can think of. People are welcome to advocate changes to the system, but if they display an ignorance of what they’re trying to change, you bet I’m gonna point it out no matter how “tedious”.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,567
411
1,350
If the discussion is about replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote, it absolutely matters. In fact, I would say it matters more than any other factor I can think of. People are welcome to advocate changes to the system, but if they display an ignorance of what they’re trying to change, you bet I’m gonna point it out no matter how “tedious”.

It's tedious because people already know it. It's a pretty foundational concept that doesn't need to be pointed out every three seconds.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,231
582
1,225
While obviously a pure democracy would cause issues aplenty let us not act as if the current state of the U.S. government is representative of anything but the wishes of those with money.

The system is absolutely fucked atm.
 

Corderlain

Banned
Jun 12, 2018
867
974
345
The electoral college is vitally important to the nation. It provides every state(with their own independent issues and ideas) a fair shake at influencing how the government is run. Mob rule will kill this country and ignore the countless millions in the center of the US who don't live in mega cities.
 
Last edited:

azz0r

Banned
May 24, 2005
1,227
1,301
1,605
www.fedsimulator.com
Majority wins. Seems fair. Its how it works in the rest of the world.

I guess republicans don't like it because of how they've rigged the system to favour them right now.
 

Horns

I drop hot takes hoping you'll argue with me. Just ignore me.
Jun 23, 2010
4,592
894
965
The electoral college is bullshit. Trump proved it was without a doubt. He lost by 3 million votes. Bush lost by 500k votes and a questionable SCOTUS ruling. Trump was elected by the least educated, least productive, and racist hateful people. It's gross people who have authoritarian inclinations who support him the most. It will eventually be changed. Trump's election is what will set it all in motion.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040
Majority wins. Seems fair. Its how it works in the rest of the world.

I guess republicans don't like it because of how they've rigged the system to favour them right now.

Majority wins is terribly unfair. Politicians would quickly turn to giving the major population centers funding, preferential legislation, and, any other favors they could think of in order to sway thier votes. Entire states like Rhode Island would be completely ignored.

Republicans have not 'rigged' the system. The parties generally take turns... the electoral, college didn't stop obama or Clinton or any other Democrat from winning.


The electoral college is bullshit. Trump proved it was without a doubt. He lost by 3 million votes. Bush lost by 500k votes and a questionable SCOTUS ruling. Trump was elected by the least educated, least productive, and racist hateful people. It's gross people who have authoritarian inclinations who support him the most. It will eventually be changed. Trump's election is what will set it all in motion.

It saddens me you think this. Like, its disgusting. You're calling other people racist and just judging entire regions of the country on their education, assuming the worst about them. No, they just don't agree with you.

Besides, If we had a popular vote we would have a different turn out. Right now voters don't turn out in full force in opposition strongholds. You can't change the rules and then use the old counts to judge the winner.

I'd you knew a damn thing about the Electoral College you'd understand it forces politicians to reach out for minority support. It helps the communities [both geographically and figuratively] with low populations and keeps their voice heard.

The new narrative that it's somehow racist is completely counter to how it actually works and is a pile of horseshit spread by sore loser politicians that should know better. Every minority group, be it a racial minority, or rural farmers, is helped by an electoral system.
 
Last edited: