Elections Former Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton: The Electoral College "Needs To Be Eliminated"

[panamaican]

She's insane. She should know the problem with a popular vote election and why we don't have one in a country this fucking large with extremely different local needs.

 

[Jack V Savage]

1. I'm not a republican

2. The United States is a huge culturally diverse country, places like New York City and L.A. that don't even collectively make up 1000 square miles, shouldn't get to decide what the rest of the very diverse 3 million square miles of the U.S. should do.

The green parts of this map are census districts with a population of zero:

They should just all be completely ignored, but then your hackish case falls apart.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think you misunderstood the overall point. In those different areas are drastically different values. People in Iowa have unique issues and concerns. This is why we vote at the state level and not federal.

This guy was a passionate opponent of the EC one month before the last election. Dude has no principles at all and will say anything to defend his party.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/e...ions-of-voters-disenfranchised.3366935/page-2

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

This guy was a passionate opponent of the EC one month before the last election. Dude has no principles at all and will say anything to defend his party.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/e...ions-of-voters-disenfranchised.3366935/page-2

Seriously Jack? Go suck a dick. I've already addressed my thread multiple times. I also don't believe this is the first time you've brought this up.

That thread set me straight. I thought about it from my own perspective and missed the bigger picture.

Some of us can actually admit when we are wrong

 

[Pickle Rick]

^ triggered^

 

[Jack V Savage]

Seriously Jack? Go suck a dick. I've already addressed my thread multiple times. I also don't believe this is the first time you've brought this up.

That thread set me straight. I thought about it from my own perspective and missed the bigger picture.

Some of us can actually admit when we are wrong

So this guy is busted red-handed having no morals or intellectual honesty, and his response is to attack the messenger and lie (if the thread "set (him) straight," that doesn't explain why he's using an entirely different set of arguments). It's tribal feeling masquerading as rational argument. Exactly what is wrong with American politics.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Why even have a Federal system? Amirite?

Well, the entire point of a federal system is that some key things are handled on a federal level and most other things are handled on a local level. One of the issues in the US, and one that has done the most to increase tensions, is that too much is being handled on a federal level. The states have lost too much power. This is why one state or another wants to secede after every election. This time it's California, next time it might be Texas.

That's why every presidential election is seen by one side or the other as the most crucial of our generation. Ultimately running everything at the national level will cause more problems than it solves. The US is too large and too diverse for one size fits all solutions.

 

[HomerThompson]

In 2012, for California alone, over 4 million votes were cast for Romney, the Republican candidate. Because of the electoral college, and it's all or nothing settup , these votes in effect went to Obama.

I only mention CA as its where I'm from and worth a lot of points, but this issue effects both sides of the aisle. With all the talk of corruption etc. How are more people not talking about this? Are you from a state that is entrenched for a certain party? Does it frustrate you that your vote goes to the opposition?

We are a representative democracy and always have been. We don't vote for things at the federal level. Why should city slickers from NY or CA decide things for iowa farmers?

Fucking ROFL.

<18><18><18><18>

@oleDirtyBast4rd

You're a complete fucking rube.

 

[HomerThompson]

Well, the entire point of a federal system is that some key things are handled on a federal level and most other things are handled on a local level. One of the issues in the US, and one that has done the most to increase tensions, is that too much is being handled on a federal level. The states have lost too much power. This is why one state or another wants to secede after every election. This time it's California, next time it might be Texas.

That's why every presidential election is seen by one side or the other as the most crucial of our generation. Ultimately running everything at the national level will cause more problems than it solves. The US is too large and too diverse for one size fits all solutions.

So, yes? Abolish the Federal government?

 

[AviatorShades]

The electoral college needs to be retooled at least.

Right now populous states aren't getting their fair share of votes.

Maybe the adjustments need to be made before every election cycle instead of every 10 years or just coming up with a fair number, 1 vote per 500K people or 1 million people, but right now it's not very balanced.

You (and I mean you specifically) did not know what the electoral college was or how it worked last year and were asking to have the basics explained to you. Now you have a radical opinion about abolishing it because Hillary said so. Very comical.

I imagine your views on Russian espionage followed an identical tajectory.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

So, yes? Abolish the Federal government?

That's a strange response, since I obviously said nothing of the sort. I don't know why anyone would insist on such an absolutist mindset. One feature of our Constitutional system is power sharing between the states and the national government. Things like our military should be federal. Things like our rights as citizens should be federal. Thing like education should be handled by the states.

Over the last century there's been a constant shift toward doing more and more at the national level and it is predictably creating a lot of unrest and pitting people from different regions against each other.

One of the best parts about the Electoral College is that it forces even the federal government to think about the interests of many different regions rather than just the interests of 51% of the population. That's crucial in a nation as large and diverse as the US.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Fucking ROFL.

<18><18><18><18>

@oleDirtyBast4rd

You're a complete fucking rube.

Why cuz I learned from discussion and have changed my position? My current argument answers all my own questions... hmm it's almost as if I brought it up to learn hmm..

 

[Rational Poster]

You (and I mean you specifically) did not know what the electoral college was or how it worked last year and were asking to have the basics explained to you. Now you have a radical opinion about abolishing it because Hillary said so. Very comical.

I imagine your views on Russian espionage followed an identical tajectory.

 

[Broken arrow]

Luckily the United States of America is a republic

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why cuz I learned from discussion and have changed my position? My current argument answers all my own questions... hmm it's almost as if I brought it up to learn hmm..

It's not that you "learned from the discussion and changed your position." You held your position until after the discussion and until after you saw partisan advantage in preserving the anachronistic system. And in the previous discussion, I addressed only one bad argument against the EC, while noting that overall, it's dumb. In this thread, you're pouring on the usual hackish arguments in favor of it rather than simply moving on from the same bad argument against it.

This is along the same lines as WR hacks' sudden revelations that actually bombing Syria is good, that liberals were right about debt, that U3 is actually not faked, and that DACA is good/bad/good again. Shows why it's a waste of time engaging you anti-Western barbarians as if you actually were zoon logikon who believe what you say.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

So this guy is busted red-handed having no morals or intellectual honesty, and his response is to attack the messenger and lie (if the thread "set (him) straight," that doesn't explain why he's using an entirely different set of arguments). It's tribal feeling masquerading as rational argument. Exactly what is wrong with American politics.

I have no intellectual honesty? I admitted i was wrong and changed my way of thinking. Read your last post in that thread and explain how my current reasoning is different. It's extra shitty of you considering you were one of the guys that helped me.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

It's not that you "learned from the discussion and changed your position." You held your position until after the discussion and until after you saw partisan advantage in preserving the anachronistic system. And in the previous discussion, I addressed only one bad argument against the EC, while noting that overall, it's dumb. In this thread, you're pouring on the usual hackish arguments in favor of it rather than simply moving on from the same bad argument against it.

This is along the same lines as WR hacks' sudden revelations that actually bombing Syria is good, that liberals were right about debt, that U3 is actually not faked, and that DACA is good/bad/good again. Shows why it's a waste of time engaging you anti-Western barbarians as if you actually were zoon logikon who believe what you say.

Wrong...

@Rod1 "As i said, i dont have any particular issue with the EC, just the "winner takes all" aspect of it.

There should be a federal protection for constitutents and not have a dominant political party speak for the entirety of a particular state.

"Winner takes all" is actually detrimental to an State because it makes politicians care less for said state, but its beneficial for a political party.

Me : "This was my takeaway as well when I made my EC gripe thread. I think voter participation would sky rocket if people felt represented. I live in southern ca, butmy area is pretty conservative (Lakewood)"

I then said this to @AnGrYcRoW

"Popular vote isn't a thing. You can't win the popular vote. You vote at the state level. The state is worth a certain number of points. You seem to take bigger issue with "winner takes all" which I can sympathize with as a conservative voter in CA. It is disingenuous to say votes from another state are worth more or less."

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

@Jack V Savage didn't expect me to be upfront about my EC thread before you could call it out did you?

 

[Fight To Win]

What a sore loser. I'm glad she's going to die powerless and forgotten but I'm sad that it likely won't be in a prison cell where she belongs.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have no intellectual honesty?

Correct. You completely flipped your position (while maintaining the same level of passionate insistence that you currently have the correct answer) based entirely on your changed perception of partisan advantage. The arguments you're typing out have been exposed as nothing but rationalizations for your tribal attachments.

I admitted i was wrong and changed my way of thinking. Read your last post in that thread and explain how my current reasoning is different. It's extra shitty of you considering you were one of the guys that helped me.

There was no admission that you were wrong in that thread. And the point I argued with you about was whether it was accurate to say that people who were in the minority didn't have their voices heard. In this thread, you're making the argument that different states have different issues that concern them so people on the coasts should have less say in the federal gov't (or something--doesn't really make sense what you're saying but that's the closest one can get). Totally different point.