Elections Should the US election be decided by electoral votes or popular votes?

[Rygu]

California and New York shouldn't get to decide every election.

Electoral.

 

[avenue94]

you dont have to focus on "safe states" cause they agree with you...

you gotta appeal to independents in swing states. this means both left and right cant just pander to their base and win.

No, you need to appeal to those swing states period. The whole idea of independent voters is overplayed. It's something, but you need your base to turn out. Hence, EC is a dumb idea, which again, no one else uses.

 

[Denter]

Note that this is a translation, which is one of the issues he has (that modern translators are imposing modern thinking onto older work). But, yeah, if true, this was Arimnestus interpreting his own ideas as coming from an external source (that's what the division is--people interpreting thoughts that pop into their heads as coming from outside). And, yes, of course I discount that possibility. Do you not?

No. Why would I? Many honorable people testified as to things like this happening all the time. Why should we call them liars?

Note that this is exactly how we still establish truth in modern court cases- reliable witness testimony. The jury decides who is trustworthy, based on many factors, and that is the truth. If we know Arimnestus is an honest man, of impeccable character, we can discount the possibility of him lying.

Might he be mistaken? Certainly. But he wasn't making stuff up. There are two possibilities after that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No. Why would I? Many honorable people testified as to things like this happening all the time. Why should we call them liars?

Note that this is exactly how we still establish truth in modern court cases- reliable witness testimony. The jury decides who is trustworthy, based on many factors, and that is the truth. If we know Arimnestus is an honest man, of impeccable character, we can discount the possibility of him lying.

Might he be mistaken? Certainly. But he wasn't making stuff up. There are two possibilities after that.

Jaynes' explanation fits perfectly (that, lacking our understanding of mental processes, he understood his thoughts to have been coming from an external source), though it's not the only one. Misquotation/mythmaking seems more likely here, though.

Oh, and the reason you'd doubt that Zeus was telling him what to do in a dream is that Zeus isn't real, and you can't communicate with people in dreams.

 

[grimballer]

No, you need to appeal to those swing states period. The whole idea of independent voters is overplayed. It's something, but you need your base to turn out. Hence, EC is a dumb idea, which again, no one else uses.

thats why its a balancing act

you only appeal to the independents and you lose your base and they dont show up.

you only appeal to your base and you lose the independents and they show up for the other guy.

if you only focuyon popular vote, many states wouldn't matter at all. all you would need to do is focus on big urbanized centers .

 

[avenue94]

thats why its a balancing act

you only appeal to the independents and you lose your base and they dont show up.

you only appeal to your base and you lose the independents and they show up for the other guy.

if you only focuyon popular vote, many states wouldn't matter at all. all you would need to do is focus on big urbanized centers .

Again, I already pointed out, to win a popular vote, you need to appeal to more states than candidates do right now. It's a better system if you're arguing that politicians must have as broad an appeal to states as possible.

Again, why does no other democracy use the EC? What makes the U.S. so special? There are countries just as diverse, who are also federalized, who have many states with disproportionate populations.

Politics aside, if you care about the country's health as a democracy, you should be horrified that battleground states are more important than California or Texas or any other big state.

 

[grimballer]

Again, I already pointed out, to win a popular vote, you need to appeal to more states than candidates do right now. It's a better system if you're arguing that politicians must have as broad an appeal to states as possible.

Again, why does no other democracy use the EC? What makes the U.S. so special? There are countries just as diverse, who are also federalized, who have many states with disproportionate populations.

Politics aside, if you care about the country's health as a democracy, you should be horrified that battleground states are more important than California or Texas or any other big state.

it makes no sense. popular vote will make states irrelevant.

it would make no difference whether you get your support in one concentrated area or all across the country.

with ec your appeal has to be wider.

and how are battle ground states more important than california or texas?

that would be like saying appealing to lgbt means theyre more important than straight ppl...

also which "democracy" is arguably better than usa?

all those democracy with limitations on free speech?

theres a reason why most other democracies are like 50 years old.

 

[Krixes]

If you had posed this question a decade ago, I predict that the vast, vast majority would have said popular vote. For most who voted "electoral votes," they're purely (and pretty openly) stating that due to the fact that it benefits their desired party. It's actually kind of impressive that Republicans have completely coalesced around supporting the electoral college now after being skeptical of it up to four years ago. The only poster that I believe is right-wing and voted "popular vote" is @Krixes.

I'm not really right winged, or left winged. I just want what is best for the country, and I personally don't think Trump or Biden fill that need. I'm not one of these posters that will defend a side like they're my sports team, wrong is wrong.

 

[Denter]

Jaynes' explanation fits perfectly (that, lacking our understanding of mental processes, he understood his thoughts to have been coming from an external source), though it's not the only one. Misquotation/mythmaking seems more likely here, though.

Oh, and the reason you'd doubt that Zeus was telling him what to do in a dream is that Zeus isn't real, and you can't communicate with people in dreams.

"Real"

 

[spamking]

I wonder how many Republicans in California, New York, and Illinois didn't vote in November thinking their vote wasn't going to matter.

I wonder how many Democrats in Texas, South Carolina, and Alabama didn't vote in November thinking thier vote wasn't going to matter.

This would be the only argument I could see in support of popular vote. I'd imagine there were several folks in various states who didn't vote for this exact reason.

 

[Denter]

Note that this is a translation, which is one of the issues he has (that modern translators are imposing modern thinking onto older work). But, yeah, if true, this was Arimnestus interpreting his own ideas as coming from an external source (that's what the division is--people interpreting thoughts that pop into their heads as coming from outside). And, yes, of course I discount that possibility. Do you not?

I've just started studying the greek this year, but this is the original passage:

καὶ τὸ τὴν μάχην ἐν ἰδίᾳ χώρᾳ ποιουμένοις τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις νίκην δίδοσθαι, πάλιν εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἀνεκαλεῖτο καὶ μεθίστη τὸν πόλεμον.
ἔνθα τῶν Πλαταιέων ὁ στρατηγὸς Ἀρίμνηστος ἔδοξε κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους ὑπὸ τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπερωτώμενον αὑτόν, ὅ τι δὴ πράττειν δέδοκται τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, εἰπεῖν, ‘αὔριον εἰς Ἐλευσῖνα τὴν στρατιὰν ἀπάξομεν, ὦ δέσποτα, καὶ διαμαχούμεθα τοῖς βαρβάροις ἐκεῖ κατὰ τὸ πυθόχρηστον.

He gets a 'edoxe', a 'thought' or "seeming" in his sleep. So you may be right on this one- it's not a vision at all. Honestly this is why I'm applying myself to this language at night, I simply can't trust the translations.

I stand to be corrected by any other esteemed posters who have better than an elementary understanding of greek also.

 

[avenue94]

it makes no sense. popular vote will make states irrelevant.

it would make no difference whether you get your support in one concentrated area or all across the country.

with ec your appeal has to be wider.

and how are battle ground states more important than california or texas?

that would be like saying appealing to lgbt means theyre more important than straight ppl...

also which "democracy" is arguably better than usa?

all those democracy with limitations on free speech?

theres a reason why most other democracies are like 50 years old.

Yeah that's the point. You can't win the popular vote by concentrating in one area. You need to lock down about half the states in the union, even if you get big states. That's ideal for democracies, have your candidates appeal to as wide a swath as possible and win as broad a coalition as possible. I've already shown you the math, did you not check it? How many states do you need to focus on in the EC vs a popular vote?

Do I seriously need to explain to you why battleground states are more important than California or Texas? Neither has been competitive in the past several elections, you would be a fool to campaign there. You only swing through for a weekend to hit the rich zip codes for money.

Not sure what LGBT has to do with the electoral college, or what free speech has to do with it. You pick the parts that work, drop the parts that don't. The EC is unhealthy, ergo drop it. Arguing that the founders somehow had foreknowledge about how big/small states would be or how they would be drawn or capped at 50 is absurdly ahistorical.

 

[deviake]

California and New York shouldn't get to decide every election.

Electoral.

Everyone who says some variant of this seem to ignore that not everyone in those areas votes a certain way.

In any event, if your politics arent popular with a large swath of the country, well, maybe work on your politics instead if rigging the system.

Sorry that democracy is an inconvenience

 

[Rygu]

Everyone who says some variant of this seem to ignore that not everyone in those areas votes a certain way.

In any event, if your politics arent popular with a large swath of the country, well, maybe work on your politics instead if rigging the system.

Sorry that democracy is an inconvenience

Yes giving all states a say in an election is definitely rigging the system.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Real"

Real, yes. Zeus is imaginary.

I've just started studying the greek this year, but this is the original passage:

καὶ τὸ τὴν μάχην ἐν ἰδίᾳ χώρᾳ ποιουμένοις τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις νίκην δίδοσθαι, πάλιν εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἀνεκαλεῖτο καὶ μεθίστη τὸν πόλεμον.
ἔνθα τῶν Πλαταιέων ὁ στρατηγὸς Ἀρίμνηστος ἔδοξε κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους ὑπὸ τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπερωτώμενον αὑτόν, ὅ τι δὴ πράττειν δέδοκται τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, εἰπεῖν, ‘αὔριον εἰς Ἐλευσῖνα τὴν στρατιὰν ἀπάξομεν, ὦ δέσποτα, καὶ διαμαχούμεθα τοῖς βαρβάροις ἐκεῖ κατὰ τὸ πυθόχρηστον.

He gets a 'edoxe', a 'thought' or "seeming" in his sleep. So you may be right on this one- it's not a vision at all. Honestly this is why I'm applying myself to this language at night, I simply can't trust the translations.

I stand to be corrected by any other esteemed posters who have better than an elementary understanding of greek also.

From the SSC (flawed) review:

Jaynes (writing in the 1970s) was both a psychology professor at Princeton and an expert in ancient languages, so the perfect person to make this case. He reviews various samples of Bronze Age writing from before and after this period, and shows that the early writings have no references to mental processes, and the later ones do. When early writings do have references to mental processes, they occur in parts agreed by scholars to be later interpolations. If, with no knowledge of the language itself, you tried to figure out which parts of a heavily-redacted ancient text were early vs. late by their level of reference to mental processes, you could do a pretty decent job.

...

So for example, a typical translation might use a phrase like “Fear filled Agamemnon’s mind”. Wrong! There is no word for “mind” in the Iliad, except maybe in the very newest interpolations. The words are things like kardia, noos, phrenes, and thumos, which Jaynes translates as heart, vision/perception, belly, and sympathetic nervous system, respectively. He might translate the sentence about Agamemnon to say something like “Quivering rose in Agamemnon’s belly”. It still means the same thing – Agamemnon is afraid – but it’s how you would talk about it if you didn’t have an idea of “the mind” as the place where mental things happened – you would just notice your belly was quivering more. Later, when the Greeks got theory of mind, they repurposed all these terms. You can still find signs of this today, like how we say “I believe it in my heart”. In fact, you can still find this split use of phrenes, which has survived into English both as the phrenic nerve (a nerve in the belly) and schizophrenia (a mental disease). As the transition wore on, people got more and more flowery about the kind of feelings you could have in your belly or your heart or whatever, until finally belly, heart, and all the others merged into a single Mind where all the mental stuff happened together.

What's actually interesting here is that modern thinking on the mind is also very culturally constrained--just in a different way. Specifically, we interpret "emotions" by applying reasoning (based on acquired knowledge and context) to very vague physiological cues, which explains stuff like this.

 

[Magooglie]

1 American Citizen = 1 Vote, anything else is disenfranchising.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Not sure if either system is right. I’d think the splitting the eC votes by state based on percentages would be ideal. So a 50.1 to 49.9 result doesn’t get you the entire state?

 

[grimballer]

Yeah that's the point. You can't win the popular vote by concentrating in one area. You need to lock down about half the states in the union, even if you get big states. That's ideal for democracies, have your candidates appeal to as wide a swath as possible and win as broad a coalition as possible. I've already shown you the math, did you not check it? How many states do you need to focus on in the EC vs a popular vote?

again states would be irrelevant in a popular vote contest...

why is that so difficult?

all you would need is have more votes than the other guy to win.

in ec you need 270 so thats at least 12 biggest states.

in popular vote that would mean 10 states.

and that's assuming everybody shows up and votes.

you could literally win in a low turnout race where less than 50% voters shows up and votes.

Do I seriously need to explain to you why battleground states are more important than California or Texas? Neither has been competitive in the past several elections, you would be a fool to campaign there. You only swing through for a weekend to hit the rich zip codes for money.

no, i need to explain to you why thats an irrelevant point.

with ec you gotta focus on those battlegrounds. without ec you coild completely ignore them and just focus on big urban zones.

Not sure what LGBT has to do with the electoral college, or what free speech has to do with it. You pick the parts that work, drop the parts that don't. The EC is unhealthy, ergo drop it. Arguing that the founders somehow had foreknowledge about how big/small states would be or how they would be drawn or capped at 50 is absurdly ahistorical.

the problem here is you just made so allegations without any evidence to back it up.

again usa is probably one if the longest functioning democracies in the world.

why would usa try to emulate some country with different history, size, population diversity....

if anit broke, dont fix it, abd so far you didn't make a good enough argument for a change

 

[grimballer]

1 American Citizen = 1 Vote, anything else is disenfranchising.

then its no longer united states of america, but some sort of people's republic america where everything is centralized in washington dc.

 

[Magooglie]

then its no longer united states of america, but some sort of people's republic america where everything is centralized in washington dc.

We're talking about electing the President here, the head of the executive branch of the Federal Government. How is it centralized in Washington DC if the votes come from each American Citizen?