do you agree with the electoral college stsyem?

[UpaLoompa]

States with smaller populations would be vastly ignored if it was straight up votes. Politicians would simply focus on the heavily populated states.

That's the rationale behind the Senate's apportionment, and I agree with it. However, what isn't okay is that currently my vote is worth three times as much as is the vote of a citizen in Texas or New York. As others have said, there are larger issues about our election system but oldshadow's persistent and apparently intentional misunderstanding of this simple fact is silly, he's usually a solid poster.

 

[Jack V Savage]

that's what we need. that and exams for voting licenses so complete ignorants don't vote on things they don't have a clue about.

That's a stupid idea, but out of curiosity, what questions would you put on it? Some really, really basic things that people should know:

1. Since the 2009, the deficit has:

A. Gone up a lot
B. Gone up a little
C. Been unchanged
D. Gone down a little
E. Gone down a lot

2. Since 2009, healthcare cost growth has been:

A. A lot higher than normal
B. A little higher than normal
C. Normal
D. A little lower than normal
E. A lot lower than normal

3. Inflation last year was:

A. Under 2%
B. 2%-4%
C. 4%-6%
D. 6%-8%
E. Over 8%

 

[Jack V Savage]

So if the smaller states arent unfairly overrepresented they are 'being trampled on by an overbearing federal government'?

Intredasting

Confederate aristocrats and their dumb hick followers have always believed that they have a God-given right to rule regardless of what other people want.

As an outsider, it makes sense to me.

States with smaller populations would be vastly ignored if it was straight up votes. Politicians would simply focus on the heavily populated states.

??? Politicians wouldn't focus on states at all. They'd just focus on getting the most total votes.

I understand (though am disgusted by) people supporting the EC because it's favorable to their interests, but the argument that tyranny of the minority is a corrective to tyranny of the majority makes no sense at all.

 

[RedRocket44]

That's the rationale behind the Senate's apportionment, and I agree with it. However, what isn't okay is that currently my vote is worth three times as much as is the vote of a citizen in Texas or New York. As others have said, there are larger issues about our election system but oldshadow's persistent and apparently intentional misunderstanding of this simple fact is silly, he's usually a solid poster.

You may disagree, but I think it's a fairer representation than straight up votes where low pop states would be an afterthought. To me, not that it matters. We have a similar system in Canada. It's not the popular vote that matters. Every area/county is worth so many seats.

I think what we all need to realize, is that we may think we live in a democracy, not just in the US, but where I live (Canada) and many other developed countries. All we are doing is voting for people who think they will have our best interests in mind once they get into office.

I hate to subscribe to the Joe Rogan intellect, but what if we actually got to vote on individual issues? Bailing out failing banks that made poor decisions and would profit by people going into default? How many people would support that? Bailing out failing automakers? Why should the government save them? Going to war instead of investing in universal healthcare, better education, improved infrastructure and reducing homelessness? I bet if you used a popular vote to determine individual issues the world would be vastly different place than it is today, where we just vote on representatives to make the choices for us once they are in office.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I hate to subscribe to the Joe Rogan intellect, but what if we actually got to vote on individual issues?

That's way to cumbersome, and we'd need to do a much, much, much better job of educating the population to make it work (realistically, it's not workable).

Bailing out failing banks that made poor decisions and would profit by people going into default? How many people would support that? Bailing out failing automakers? Why should the government save them?

How does it benefit the nation to let cyclical downturns wipe out industries when they can be saved? If an individual company is badly run or a product is becoming obsolete, that's a different situation, but I'd think that the auto industry rescue was obviously good policy (at least in hindsight, but I'd argue that it was clear at the time).

Going to war instead of investing in universal healthcare, better education, improved infrastructure and reducing homelessness? I bet if you used a popular vote to determine individual issues the world would be vastly different place than it is today, where we just vote on representatives to make the choices for us once they are in office.

It would definitely be different, and better in some ways. But overall, no. There's a reason that representative democracy has won out.

 

[UpaLoompa]

You may disagree, but I think it's a fairer representation than straight up votes where low pop states would be an afterthought. To me, not that it matters. We have a similar system in Canada. It's not the popular vote that matters. Every area/county is worth so many seats.

How is it more "fair" when some people's votes count more than other people's votes? That seems clearly unfair.

Bailing out failing banks that made poor decisions and would profit by people going into default? How many people would support that? Bailing out failing automakers? Why should the government save them? Going to war instead of investing in universal healthcare, better education, improved infrastructure and reducing homelessness? I bet if you used a popular vote to determine individual issues the world would be vastly different place than it is today, where we just vote on representatives to make the choices for us once they are in office.

Given the hysterical (used in two senses) ways people respond to things, that's a pretty horrible idea. Currently the US population generally supports massively increasing spending on, well, everything, while simultaneously wanting massive tax decreases and no deficit spending. We'd also likely be bombing the shit out of even more people one day and then freaking out and withdrawing if a single soldier dies in a conflict the next.

 

[RedRocket44]

That's way to cumbersome, and we'd need to do a much, much, much better job of educating the population to make it work (realistically, it's not workable).



How does it benefit the nation to let cyclical downturns wipe out industries when they can be saved? If an individual company is badly run or a product is becoming obsolete, that's a different situation, but I'd think that the auto industry rescue was obviously good policy (at least in hindsight, but I'd argue that it was clear at the time).



It would definitely be different, and better in some ways. But overall, no. There's a reason that representative democracy has won out.

I agree 100%, obviously voting on individual issues would become pretty much impossibly cumbersome. Pretty much no way to do it. Unfortunately for us, we just vote on a guy (or girl) who we think will best represent us when these many unforeseen issues arise, and will handle it to our satisfaction.

I don't think that dismisses the fact that there's vast difference between how society would vote overall on individual issues, vs. how it's handled by the people we elect to represent us. They are subject to so many outside influences that the regular voter is not.

 

[oldshadow]

That's the rationale behind the Senate's apportionment, and I agree with it. However, what isn't okay is that currently my vote is worth three times as much as is the vote of a citizen in Texas or New York. As others have said, there are larger issues about our election system but oldshadow's persistent and apparently intentional misunderstanding of this simple fact is silly, he's usually a solid poster.

I'm not convinced that the smaller populated states would not be run over and dictated to by the larger populated states.

I need to do a lot more research but I like I said I believe in states rights (within the constitution) and that includes the smaller states.

 

[RedRocket44]

How is it more "fair" when some people's votes count more than other people's votes? That seems clearly unfair.



Given the hysterical (used in two senses) ways people respond to things, that's a pretty horrible idea. Currently the US population generally supports massively increasing spending on, well, everything, while simultaneously wanting massive tax decreases and no deficit spending. We'd also likely be bombing the shit out of even more people one day and then freaking out and withdrawing if a single soldier dies in a conflict the next.

I'm not sure what to say? Save some money on invading other countries and you have some money to spend domestically?

Obviously increased spending on things within the country like healthcare and education require money, but less spending on military and war could probably balance things out?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm not convinced that the smaller populated states would not be run over and dictated to by the larger populated states.

I need to do a lot more research but I like I said I believe in states rights (within the constitution) and that includes the smaller states.

Regarding your "run over" bit, not only do we have a constitution and its interpretation by the SC but we also have the Senate.

Again, currently my vote is worth the vote of three people in Texas or New York or California. Why are you okay with disenfranchising voters in that manner?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm not sure what to say? Save some money on invading other countries and you have some money to spend domestically?

Obviously increased spending on things within the country like healthcare and education require money, but less spending on military and war could probably balance things out?

If it were strict popular vote the US would be blowing shit up constantly, there's no way we'd be spending less on the military. Hell, reductions in the rate of military spending increases are sources of huge uproar.

 

[oldshadow]

Regarding your "run over" bit, not only do we have a constitution and its interpretation by the SC but we also have the Senate.

Again, currently my vote is worth the vote of three people in Texas or New York or California. Why are you okay with disenfranchising voters in that manner?

If we are talking about switch the presidential vote to popular then maybe.

 

[UpaLoompa]

If we are talking about switch the presidential vote to popular then maybe.

"do you agree with the electoral college stsyem (sic)?"
You are the only person that I've seen that has brought up less populous states splitting House reps. I haven't seen anyone suggest getting rid of the Senate.
Seriously, what's your fucking point?

There have also been discussions about gerrymandering and as far as I can tell you're also the only one that has defended that practice.

 

[oldshadow]

"do you agree with the electoral college stsyem (sic)?"
You are the only person that I've seen that has brought up less populous states splitting House reps. I haven't seen anyone suggest getting rid of the Senate.
Seriously, what's your fucking point?
EThere have also been discussions about gerrymandering and as far as I can tell you're also the only one that has defended that practice.

I'm still out on the electoral collage system at first I was for going to popular vote but after some thought I'm not sure so I'm doing more research.

As far as congress I was answering someone that brought that up and right now I see no reason to change how that is done other then better state oversight.

 

[armbarboy]

It should be one person equals one vote, all counted the same. That's how voting works. The electoral college bullshit allows people who lost the vote to get elected anyway (Bush Jr, for example). No logic, unfair, not democratic.

I think so.
Democracy is a power of the majority. I really can't understand why we should use the electoral college because "We the people" you know. Yes, a lot of people say that if one person equals one vote LA and NY will run. I don't believe it. It sound like paranoia.

 

[lapollarecords]

That's a stupid idea, but out of curiosity, what questions would you put on it? Some really, really basic things that people should know:

1. Since the 2009, the deficit has:

A. Gone up a lot
B. Gone up a little
C. Been unchanged
D. Gone down a little
E. Gone down a lot

2. Since 2009, healthcare cost growth has been:

A. A lot higher than normal
B. A little higher than normal
C. Normal
D. A little lower than normal
E. A lot lower than normal

3. Inflation last year was:

A. Under 2%
B. 2%-4%
C. 4%-6%
D. 6%-8%
E. Over 8%

I am not american so I don't know what I would ask there, but these are the type of things I'd ask here.

-when was the civil war?
-when was the constitution written?
-who is the general deputy of your province?
-which is the ruling party in your autonomous region?
-who is the head of state?
etc

really simple stuff. people who don't know that have no business voting for things that matter.

out of curiosity, why do you think excluding people who absolutely don't care about politics until the election day is a stupid idea?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I am not american so I don't know what I would ask there, but these are the type of things I'd ask here.

-when was the civil war?
-when was the constitution written?
-who is the general deputy of your province?
-which is the ruling party in your autonomous region?
-who is the head of state?
etc

really simple stuff. people who don't know that have no business voting for things that matter.

out of curiosity, why do you think excluding people who absolutely don't care about politics until the election day is a stupid idea?

Those are fine for basic citizen tests but if you're talking about direct voting on policy issues, you should have more detailed knowledge.

 

[lapollarecords]

Those are fine for basic citizen tests but if you're talking about direct voting on policy issues, you should have more detailed knowledge.

sure, but if you ask for more detailed knowledge, the amount of people voting would be extremely low. even with the questions I listed, a lot of people would fail. you have to make it more difficult gradually.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I am not american so I don't know what I would ask there, but these are the type of things I'd ask here.

-when was the civil war?
-when was the constitution written?
-who is the general deputy of your province?
-which is the ruling party in your autonomous region?
-who is the head of state?
etc

really simple stuff. people who don't know that have no business voting for things that matter.

I don't see how knowing or not knowing any of that stuff would matter. If it is important to you that people know it, why not just have voters watch a short video with that info?

out of curiosity, why do you think excluding people who absolutely don't care about politics until the election day is a stupid idea?

Because that kind of thing has happened many times, and it's never gone well. The question is, "who controls the barriers?" Personally, I think that if voters were better informed (and that could be done by, you know, informing voters) that would make my policy preferences much more likely to be enacted but that the process would quickly be corrupted.

The track record of democratic nations utterly obliterates the track record of non-democratic ones across a wide range of metrics. It's something you cannot possibly miss.

 

[UpaLoompa]

sure, but if you ask for more detailed knowledge, the amount of people voting would be extremely low. even with the questions I listed, a lot of people would fail. you have to make it more difficult gradually.

Do you want people voting on issues of tax structure without more detailed knowledge? (This was in regards to direct voting on everything, right?)