Politics Electoral College (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Natebishop3 said:
So I'm curious, are you in favor of affirmative action?
Click to expand...

As an answer in a Utopian world where everyone has the same rights and the same opportunities, no. As a way to right a wrong that takes a long time to right (in other words, a way to speed the process to create that same rights and same opportunities world) - yes. Where we are in the process I really do not know.
 
Last edited:
Natebishop3 said:
The states weren't created a few hundred years ago to fuck over Hillary Clinton. That's asinine.
Click to expand...

Forget Hillary effin' Clinton.

Let's take 2 states that voted for her - to remove the republican / democrat issue.

in 2016 - 14,181,595 people voted in the California, a state with 55 electoral votes.
In Vermont, 315,065 people voted, for 3 electoral votes.

If we divide the number of electoral votes by the number of voters (I do not have the eligible voters, but if someone is willing to provide these numbers we can use them instead) - a vote in California was worth only 60% of the vote in Vermont. There is no reasonable way to claim that it is just and right that a voter in Norwich VT is worth more than a voter in Baker, CA.
 
andalusian said:
Forget Hillary effin' Clinton.

Let's take 2 states that voted for her - to remove the republican / democrat issue.

in 2016 - 14,181,595 people voted in the California, a state with 55 electoral votes.
In Vermont, 315,065 people voted, for 3 electoral votes.

If we divide the number of electoral votes by the number of voters (I do not have the eligible voters, but if someone is willing to provide these numbers we can use them instead) - a vote in California was worth only 60% of the vote in Vermont. There is no reasonable way to claim that it is just and right that a voter in Norwich VT is worth more than a voter in Baker, CA.
Click to expand...
This was the point I was trying to make. The way the current EC works has the exact same end result as gerrymandering districts within a state. Getting rid of the EC in today's world would be the antithesis of gerrymandering.

Like I said before though, I am undecided on the EC issue. We want every vote to count equally, but we also don't want to create vast swaths of political hinterlands . It is tricky.
 
theprunetang said:
I didn't say anything about Hillary fucking Clinton dude. Get out of your feelings.
Click to expand...

My feelings have nothing to do with it. You said that the EC is the definition of gerrymandering, which is silly.

manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.

The states weren't created to favor any party, but removing the EC would HEAVILY favor the democrats, no?
 
andalusian said:
Forget Hillary effin' Clinton.

Let's take 2 states that voted for her - to remove the republican / democrat issue.

in 2016 - 14,181,595 people voted in the California, a state with 55 electoral votes.
In Vermont, 315,065 people voted, for 3 electoral votes.

If we divide the number of electoral votes by the number of voters (I do not have the eligible voters, but if someone is willing to provide these numbers we can use them instead) - a vote in California was worth only 60% of the vote in Vermont. There is no reasonable way to claim that it is just and right that a voter in Norwich VT is worth more than a voter in Baker, CA.
Click to expand...

Then this is an issue over who gets how many electoral votes. Not the system itself.
 
andalusian said:
Forget Hillary effin' Clinton.

Let's take 2 states that voted for her - to remove the republican / democrat issue.

in 2016 - 14,181,595 people voted in the California, a state with 55 electoral votes.
In Vermont, 315,065 people voted, for 3 electoral votes.

If we divide the number of electoral votes by the number of voters (I do not have the eligible voters, but if someone is willing to provide these numbers we can use them instead) - a vote in California was worth only 60% of the vote in Vermont. There is no reasonable way to claim that it is just and right that a voter in Norwich VT is worth more than a voter in Baker, CA.
Click to expand...

You're doing fuzzy math again.

Each state is assigned a number of electoral votes according to its population. The number of electoral votes is set at 538. Each state receives one electoral vote for the number of members it has in the House of Representatives; this accounts for 435 of the 538 electoral votes.
 
Natebishop3 said:
My feelings have nothing to do with it. You said that the EC is the definition of gerrymandering, which is silly.

manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.

The states weren't created to favor any party.
Click to expand...
The EC was not created for this purpose obviously. However, in today's world, it does indeed give rural areas more political punch per person than more populated areas. Getting rid of the EC would, at this point, negate some of that inequality.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Then this is an issue over who gets how many electoral votes. Not the system itself.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of the EC - the electoral votes. The simplest way to solve it - is to go to the popular vote. Anytime you have electoral votes - you will have some kind of discrepancy, at the moment it is pretty absurd as shown by the example I gave above.
 
dviss1 said:
You're doing fuzzy math again.

Each state is assigned a number of electoral votes according to its population. The number of electoral votes is set at 538. Each state receives one electoral vote for the number of members it has in the House of Representatives; this accounts for 435 of the 538 electoral votes.
Click to expand...

My math is 100% right. the number of electoral votes assigned is not directly related to the population - or you would not have 40% difference in the weight of a vote as shown above.

States with a small population get an unfair advantage in the number of electoral votes they get - the entire system is wrong, imho.
 
dviss1 said:
Who gives a fuck where she campaigns?

She ain't gonna win and I ain't voting for her.
Click to expand...

It was an example. Replace her name with your preferred nominee.

Candidates (and Political money) will only focus on large cities.
 
dviss1 said:
Why because most people vote dem?

I disagree with this premise.

To that end, get MFs to vote for you... Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

It favors Dems because urban population tends to vote Democrat and rural tends to vote Republican. Obviously this is a very general definition of urban and rural, but the most heavily dense cities tend to go left, no?
 
Natebishop3 said:
It favors Dems because urban population tends to vote Democrat and rural tends to vote Republican. Obviously this is a very general definition of urban and rural, but the most heavily dense cities tend to go left, no?
Click to expand...

See, that dynamic will probably change. More republicans will come out of the woodwork because right now, they are "wasted votes" in the electoral system. Conservative think tanks will flood money into California, New York, etc to get the vote out.

Abolishing the electoral college will absolutely help the right, both in national elections and in local ones in Blue States.

People just don't know it yet.
 
Natebishop3 said:
It favors Dems because urban population tends to vote Democrat and rural tends to vote Republican. Obviously this is a very general definition of urban and rural, but the most heavily dense cities tend to go left, no?
Click to expand...
So, the way it is currently running, the people in more densely populated areas are given less political clout than those in rural areas. Thanks for proving my point.
 
theprunetang said:
The EC was not created for this purpose obviously. However, in today's world, it does indeed give rural areas more political punch per person than more populated areas. Getting rid of the EC would, at this point, negate some of that inequality.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the EC is to prevent the highly populated areas from screwing over the rural areas.
 
tlongII said:
The purpose of the EC is to prevent the highly populated areas from screwing over the rural areas.
Click to expand...
I totally understand. The way things have shifted though, the rural areas are now screwing over the highly populated areas. I don't pretend to have a definitive answer for this problem. I'm just willing to admit that there is indeed a problem.
 
theprunetang said:
I totally understand. The way things have shifted though, the rural areas are now screwing over the highly populated areas. I don't pretend to have a definitive answer for this problem. I'm just willing to admit that there is indeed a problem.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the rural areas are screwing over the highly populated areas?
 
If you want to really get to the nitty gritty of this discussion, you have to expand it to the US Senate. Why should a dinky state like Rhode Island have the same number of senators as California or New York? Why do citizens of those states get more effective say on things like confirmation of Supreme Court justices than more populous states?

The answer, of course, is history. The founders weren’t creating what they thought of as a single nation as much as they saw it as inventing a way for a federation of separate and equal states to work together on common areas of interest such as defense and interstate commerce. We don’t think of it that way as much today, but the separate states still want to be sure that their individual interests are represented. I don’t see that changing.
 
theprunetang said:
So, the way it is currently running, the people in more densely populated areas are given less political clout than those in rural areas. Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

This isn't a democracy. It's that simple. So yes, a person who lives in a smaller state will have a more impactful vote than someone who lives in California. But that's how a Democratic Republic works. That's how our entire system is constructed. Otherwise our system of government is a sham. Why do you think the EU is having troubles? The EU is not that much different than the US, except that it's newer and those countries have been around a lot longer, but it's a collection of states who came together for the common good. And just like how there's cultural and political differences between England and Germany, there are cultural and political differences between Arkansas and California.

If we go to a straight up popular vote, you will have a national problem similar to what we have in Oregon. I don't even vote half the time because I know the Democrat will win. Hell, the Democrats can run a guy who is being investigated of a crime and he'll STILL win. They can run a candidate that doesn't give a shit and doesn't want to debate her opponent because she knows she only needs to just show up to win. Do we really want that on a national level? Someone that can court the major cities and then just mail it in?
 
tlongII said:
Why do you think the rural areas are screwing over the highly populated areas?
Click to expand...
There are many reasons. A vote cast in California or any other populous state is worth about 60% of a vote cast in a moe rural state. Only 5 times in US history has a president lost the popular vote and still won the electoral college, and 2 of those instances were in the last 18 years, both times favoring a Republican over a Democrat. Clearly, something is eschewed currently. Small town America is making the decisions for the rest of the nation. It should not be the opposite either. I'm not asking to reverse this in the opposite direction. I personally believe that some tweaks need to be enacted which can help even the current discrepancy.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
See, that dynamic will probably change. More republicans will come out of the woodwork because right now, they are "wasted votes" in the electoral system. Conservative think tanks will flood money into California, New York, etc to get the vote out.

Abolishing the electoral college will absolutely help the right, both in national elections and in local ones in Blue States.

People just don't know it yet.
Click to expand...

That might or might not be true - but if so, then it's the right result. It would be a more fair system.

barfo
 
Natebishop3 said:
This isn't a democracy. It's that simple. So yes, a person who lives in a smaller state will have a more impactful vote than someone who lives in California. But that's how a Democratic Republic works. That's how our entire system is constructed. Otherwise our system of government is a sham. Why do you think the EU is having troubles? The EU is not that much different than the US, except that it's newer and those countries have been around a lot longer, but it's a collection of states who came together for the common good. And just like how there's cultural and political differences between England and Germany, there are cultural and political differences between Arkansas and California.

If we go to a straight up popular vote, you will have a national problem similar to what we have in Oregon. I don't even vote half the time because I know the Democrat will win. Hell, the Democrats can run a guy who is being investigated of a crime and he'll STILL win. They can run a candidate that doesn't give a shit and doesn't want to debate her opponent because she knows she only needs to just show up to win. Do we really want that on a national level? Someone that can court the major cities and then just mail it in?
Click to expand...
I agree with much of this, and have stated that several times in this very thread. I'm not for abolishing the EC. I'm still making my mind up. I'm also leery of creating hinterlands in small town America where people end up feeling underrepresented. That is dangerous and unfair. I do however think that things aren't running as intended and some small tweaks might be needed to even things out.
 
barfo said:
That might or might not be true - but if so, then it's the right result. It would be a more fair system.

barfo
Click to expand...

It will be the Pareto Principle. 20% of the country (areawise) will make 80% of the decision for President!
 
theprunetang said:
I agree with much of this, and have stated that several times in this very thread. I'm not for abolishing the EC. I'm still making my mind up. I'm also leery of creating hinterlands in small town America where people end up feeling underrepresented. That is dangerous and unfair. I do however think that things aren't running as intended and some small tweaks might be needed to even things out.
Click to expand...

The DNC and RNC will basically abandon the use of funds for anywhere besides big city folk like myself! rural communities and states will die in favor of the big megalopolis.

a glorious future!
 
Natebishop3 said:
If we go to a straight up popular vote, you will have a national problem similar to what we have in Oregon. I don't even vote half the time because I know the Democrat will win.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In most states, a big fraction of the population's votes don't count because the state reliably tilts one way or the other.

The country as a whole, though, is much more evenly split than most states are.

Would you be as sure that the Democrat would win nationally as you are that the Democrat will win in Oregon? Not if you are rational.

No, you'd vote in a national popular vote election, because your vote might actually matter.

But you are arguing for keeping a system where your vote doesn't matter.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top