Here's What America Looks Like..

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
ABM

ABM

Happily Married In Music City, USA!
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
31,865
Likes
5,785
Points
113
..based on the last election. Any questions? :)

545543_10151321923986667_860632622_n.jpg
 
Why don't we have an electoral college for the electoral college?
 
Yes, what happened to Alaska and Hawaii?
 
westnob said:
YES! let's just go straight to the popular vote!
Click to expand...

I think the popular vote is the best way to get every state involved in this day and age. With the way things are now, the states like Oregon where they know the majority of people will vote Democrat are not even a priority. I don't even feel like my vote counts if I don't vote democrat.
 
Natebishop3 said:
And that the majority of the country lives in urban population centers along the coasts.
Click to expand...

Well, there are urban centers throughout the country, but the coastal states seem to have a higher urban-to-rural ratio. The cities are more liberal, everywhere. Even in Texas, places like Dallas go for the Democrats. But in Texas, the cities are drowned out by the high amount of rural voters in the rest of the state...blue dots in an ocean of red. Whereas, along the coasts, there's a lot less rural territory between the cities.

It is true, though, that most people are in urban settings these days, which is why the Republicans by and large would be the party that would oppose removing the Electoral College. The Electoral College gives greater weight to geographic area...smaller population states have a much greater proportion of electoral votes than they have proportion of the nation's population. While the winner of the Electoral College tends to win the popular vote too, it's a small structural advantage in favor of the Republicans by and large because it diminishes the power of people living in cities (though not always...while Obama's popular vote lead has actually been expanding as more votes are counted, his Electoral College vote proportion is still going to be larger. The College can also be a structural advantage for the candidate with the better get-out-the-vote state targeting).

I'd favor two changes: switching to a straight national popular vote and also switching to a run-off election. First you have a vote with all the eligible candidates and then a second vote for the two highest vote-getters from the first vote. The advantage of the run-off system is to give third party candidates a chance to build a coalition. In a first-past-the-post system (like we currently have), people are afraid to vote for third party candidates, even if they aren't totally satisfied with the two major candidates, because they see it as potentially "throwing their vote away" on someone who has no chance to win. So no third party ever has a chance to slowly build a coalition over multiple cycles. Whereas in a run-off, people could "vote their conscience" and pick the candidate they like best and still know that if their guy doesn't win, they can still impact who their future leader is.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
I was wondering if you'd catch that.

And it's Nobel.

Isn't it?
Click to expand...

It is, because it was named after Alfred Nobel. But you'll notice that I wasn't capitalizing any of my words in those two sentences and so stylistically I wasn't about to go capitalizing Nobel.

What were we talking about again?
 
Minstrel said:
I'd favor two changes: switching to a straight national popular vote and also switching to a run-off election. First you have a vote with all the eligible candidates and then a second vote for the two highest vote-getters from the first vote. The advantage of the run-off system is to give third party candidates a chance to build a coalition. In a first-past-the-post system (like we currently have), people are afraid to vote for third party candidates, even if they aren't totally satisfied with the two major candidates, because they see it as potentially "throwing their vote away" on someone who has no chance to win. So no third party ever has a chance to slowly build a coalition over multiple cycles. Whereas in a run-off, people could "vote their conscience" and pick the candidate they like best and still know that if their guy doesn't win, they can still impact who their future leader is.
Click to expand...

Like the way you think.
 
hoojacks said:
It is, because it was named after Alfred Nobel. But you'll notice that I wasn't capitalizing any of my words in those two sentences and so stylistically I wasn't about to go capitalizing Nobel.

What were we talking about again?
Click to expand...


...a noble effort, indeed. :cheers:
 
In thinking about how to keep both large and small states relevant, perhaps we could go to a system where every district voted for President and then whoever won the state popular vote received the two senate electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine do something along those lines and I think it's a decent idea. Both parties would hate it because it would be a truly national election, which means that saturating swing states wouldn't be possible and you couldn't just focus in a few states. However, it would mean that television would play less of a role and grass roots would play a bit more.
 
In the 60s and 70s, newspapers ran post-election maps with each state sized by population. The maps above are the deceptive pro-Republican version. Similarly, Russians prefer a map projection which makes Russia, Canada, Alaska, and Greenland look enormous.
 
If you look at the south you can see a relic from the cotton belt. A swathe of counties remain Democratic in Republican stronghold states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. This land used to be coastal area, and billions plankton that died here would become the chalk deposits upon which cotton would thrive.

121106_strangemapsoverlay1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
Politics The official presidential election prediction thread!
3 4 5
Replies
145
Views
8K
Sedatedfork
Sedatedfork
barfo
Don't believe what you read
Replies
7
Views
434
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
ABM
OT Time Magazine Investigative Piece on Election, Etc.
Replies
2
Views
245
riverman
riverman
Phatguysrule
Forum Game MAGA: When Was America Great?
Replies
16
Views
714
theprunetang
theprunetang
SlyPokerDog
Politics Federal grand jury probing Trump PAC's formation, fundraising efforts: Sources
Replies
2
Views
242
Chris Craig
Chris Craig

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top