do you agree with the electoral college stsyem?

[UpaLoompa]

This is my point. Popular vote is but a stat really. It has no significance

Your point is that your vote would count for less straight up and despite complaining about feeling like your vote doesn't count, that's what you want?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Your point is that your vote would count for less straight up and despite complaining about feeling like your vote doesn't count, that's what you want?

If it goes to the popular vote, how is my vote worth less? I don't follow

 

[oldshadow]

What prevents the majority from having absolute control over the minority is the notion of rights and a constitution. Giving outsized control to people who live in Southern states has zero impact on that issue.

and one of those rights is the electoral college

You statement is answered and what applies to people applies to states.

For you the only fair thing to you would be the places that support your political ideas should count and only power should rest in the hands of the people you approve of.

Which is why it's set up the way it is to prevent that kind of bull shit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

and one of those rights is the electoral college

Um, no. ???

 

[Jack V Savage]

You statement is answered and what applies to people applies to states.

For you the only fair thing to you would be the places that support your political ideas should count and only power should rest in the hands of the people you approve of.

Which is why it's set up the way it is to prevent that kind of bull shit.

Why are you lying about me?

It's simply a fact that the purpose of the electoral college is to give people living in less-populated areas unfair representation. And doing that in no way protects anyone's rights. You don't prevent tyranny of the majority by supporting tyranny of the minority--you do it by generally protecting human rights.

 

[Lead]

I understand why they did it. To a point, each state represents it's own interests and culture. By grouping the state together, you have a politician key in on the specific needs of that group.

However, the popular vote seems appealing to me. I still like the strategy in any presidential race for enough electoral votes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I understand why they did it. To a point, each state represents it's own interests and culture. By grouping the state together, you have a politician key in on the specific needs of that group.

However, the popular vote seems appealing to me. I still like the strategy in any presidential race for enough electoral votes.

You don't think it's "tyranny" if Republicans aren't allowed to set policy when they don't have the necessary votes?

 

[Zankou]

Biggest non-issue ever. Mathematically the difference between electoral college votes and the popular vote is negligible. There is nothing magical about the number of precisely 50% of a popular vote, though it has by convention assumed that number in people's minds.

It also doesn't prima facie significantly advantage any particular position.

It should be done away with because it's pointless and outdated, but by the same token ... it's essentially pointless.

If you are genuinely concerned that your individual vote makes no real difference in the grand scheme of things, mathematically speaking there are some more fundamental issues to focus your education on, not the electoral college.

 

[Phisher]

If you're angry about the electoral college not properly apportioning votes, you should be livid about the way that the Senate is structured.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/3/7482635/senate-small-states

But here's a crazy fact: those 46 Democrats got more votes than the 54 Republicans across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections. According to Nathan Nicholson, a researcher at the voting reform advocacy group FairVote, "the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes."

Because it's not representative of the popular vote at all.

There's also the issue of the gerrymandered House districts across the US.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html

 

[HugeMember]

Yes.

 

[oldshadow]

Why are you lying about me?

It's simply a fact that the purpose of the electoral college is to give people living in less-populated areas unfair representation. And doing that in no way protects anyone's rights. You don't prevent tyranny of the majority by supporting tyranny of the minority--you do it by generally protecting human rights.

Bull you want anyone living in the more rural states not to have the power to prevent the urban states from controlling and dominate them.

You want the ability for the federal government run by the people you like, to set and enforce policy you want and to get that you must take the ability to fight from the less populated states.

The government was set up to prevent this as much as possible, however the civil rights movement would have taken a blow under your idea.

This is standard liberal elitism that believe they know what is best and they should run things and the "dumb hicks" should just do what they are told for their own good.

This why states rights are guaranteed and why the government is set up to prevent this and that would apply to the right or left.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

It isn't the only injustice I'm frustrated with but probably one of the most obvious. At least the other bs that supports bypassing votes is done in secret.

What's the point of my vote on the presidentials? My representation voted for Obama. It's as if I myself voted for Obama

 

[UpaLoompa]

If you are genuinely concerned that your individual vote makes no real difference in the grand scheme of things, mathematically speaking there are some more fundamental issues to focus your education on, not the electoral college.

While that's true now, movements to allocate EC votes by districts can potentially fuck things up royally. For example, we know that the GOP regularly loses house popular vote tallies but nonetheless controls the house.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Dochtor you never explained how popular vote would make my vote count for less

 

[UpaLoompa]

Dochtor you never explained how popular vote would make my vote count for less

Oh, my bad. I'd have to check the numbers, they well could have been erroneous, but I recall reading that generally in California democrat turn out is lower than the rest of the country.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I don't care if I win or not (well I do) but, I want my vote to could just as much as anybody else's. Matters little to me how much I disagree with them.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I don't care if I win or not (well I do) but, I want my vote to could just as much as anybody else's. Matters little to me how much I disagree with them.

Then your issue is with how the number of electoral votes are allocated among states, not the electoral system itself. Your issue isn't within states--as that just mirrors the popular vote--and the full apportionment of a state's EC's to that state's popular winner. Your vote is worth as much as any democrat's in California. However, both of your votes are worth less than a republican or democrat's in most states that are less populous. I'm currently in a state where my single vote counts much more than yours but, since my state is a lock for the GOP, the end effect is the same as in yours but in the opposite direction.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Bull you want anyone living in the more rural states not to have the power to prevent the urban states from controlling and dominate them.

Despite your objections to how he's phrasing and framing things, he's ultimately correct that rural states have disproportionately high political clout. That's certainly true in regards to population and, likely, economic contribution. Why does a rural state vote count more toward the presidential election than a more urban state vote? Why do rural voters get disproportionately higher House representation relative to city voters (via gerrymandering)? Why do rural voters get disproportionately higher Senate representation relative to population numbers?

Regardless of what JVS may or may not want, the current situation is that rural states--and counties--have control disproportionate to their population at the federal level in two of the three branches of government.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Bull you want anyone living in the more rural states not to have the power to prevent the urban states from controlling and dominate them.

So I don't support freedom of speech for dumb hicks? Or their freedom to practice their dumb hick religion? Or are you saying that "controlling and dominating" means "implementing policy that they may not agree with." If that's it, do you think the corrective is to let a minority "control and dominate" everyone else?

You want the ability for the federal government run by the people you like, to set and enforce policy you want and to get that you must take the ability to fight from the less populated states.

You're assuming that everyone is as much of a dishonorable piece of shit as you apparently are. That's not the case.

The government was set up to prevent this as much as possible, however the civil rights movement would have taken a blow under your idea.

Um, no it would not. Civil rights are, as I said, the corrective to tyranny of the majority. Giving the minority control over the gov't is not. Really, think about your position here.

This is standard liberal elitism that believe they know what is best and they should run things and the "dumb hicks" should just do what they are told for their own good.

Is it "elitism" that dumb hicks want their policy preferences to be enacted? No. Everyone wants the policy that they think is best. And the way we decide it is democracy, though our form has some flaws that give disproportionate representation to certain people (coincidentally, mostly people who philosophically do not believe in equal rights).

This why states rights are guaranteed and why the government is set up to prevent this and that would apply to the right or left.

States rights are privileged over human rights because of compromises we made with opponents of human rights.

 

[My Spot]

It gave us Bush, so no.