|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 27 2013 08:25 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 08:15 white_horse wrote:
^What kind of non-electoral college are you guys thinking about? What does it even mean that the GOP only controls alaska and the great plains? Where the hell did you get that idea? If it's a straight-up popular vote, like it should be, then everyone's vote is worth the same and it forces candidates to beg for votes in all 50 states.
A democrat in alabama might as well just vote for the republican ticket because that state is going to be red no matter what you do. Which means your vote is screwed. Which means you aren't fairly represented at the end of the election. Yes, but as anyone who's worked on a political campaign will tell you, they will essentially ignore any rural area and focus on only urban areas (you get more impact per effort).
The theory of ignoring the small areas was an idea tried on the primaries back in 2008 by Hilary and it failed then because its impossible to get enough votes ignoring large chunks of the population and I would say as a whole campaigns typically do more suburban events more than urban ones.
|
On January 27 2013 08:15 white_horse wrote:
^What kind of non-electoral college are you guys thinking about? What does it even mean that the GOP only controls alaska and the great plains? Where the hell did you get that idea? If it's a straight-up popular vote, like it should be, then everyone's vote is worth the same and it forces candidates to beg for votes in all 50 states.
A democrat in alabama might as well just vote for the republican ticket because that state is going to be red no matter what you do. Which means your vote is screwed. Which means you aren't fairly represented at the end of the election.
That's because the US is a "republic" and not a "democracy". It is a federation of states, not individuals. Individuals didn't even get the right to vote for the President until the constitution was later amended.
Everyone's vote is not the same. You are essential fighting other people in your state. Swing state votes are much much more valuable.
|
On January 27 2013 08:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 07:58 Mindcrime wrote:On January 27 2013 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Ridding ourselves of EC would just mean that only the large urban areas mattered. If, in the absence of an EC-like system, urban areas dominated elections, then the Republican party would not control any states outside of the Great Plains, Idaho and Alaska. and yet it does ProTip: Not every single urban area is Democratic.
And that's why I excluded the states that I did.
Cincinnati is a Republican stronghold but, unlike Boise or Oklahoma City, it shares its state with comparably large cities that are not.
|
On January 27 2013 08:25 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 08:15 white_horse wrote:
^What kind of non-electoral college are you guys thinking about? What does it even mean that the GOP only controls alaska and the great plains? Where the hell did you get that idea? If it's a straight-up popular vote, like it should be, then everyone's vote is worth the same and it forces candidates to beg for votes in all 50 states.
A democrat in alabama might as well just vote for the republican ticket because that state is going to be red no matter what you do. Which means your vote is screwed. Which means you aren't fairly represented at the end of the election. Yes, but as anyone who's worked on a political campaign will tell you, they will essentially ignore any rural area and focus on only urban areas (you get more impact per effort).
That's also because rural voters are significantly more likely to be republicans and they're not exactly a swing 'social group'.
|
On January 27 2013 09:59 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 08:25 BluePanther wrote:On January 27 2013 08:15 white_horse wrote:
^What kind of non-electoral college are you guys thinking about? What does it even mean that the GOP only controls alaska and the great plains? Where the hell did you get that idea? If it's a straight-up popular vote, like it should be, then everyone's vote is worth the same and it forces candidates to beg for votes in all 50 states.
A democrat in alabama might as well just vote for the republican ticket because that state is going to be red no matter what you do. Which means your vote is screwed. Which means you aren't fairly represented at the end of the election. Yes, but as anyone who's worked on a political campaign will tell you, they will essentially ignore any rural area and focus on only urban areas (you get more impact per effort). That's also because rural voters are significantly more likely to be republicans and they're not exactly a swing 'social group'.
What does that have to do with what I said?
|
Tancredo has backed out of the bet to smoke a joint.
|
On January 27 2013 12:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Tancredo has backed out of the bet to smoke a joint.
What was the bet?
|
On January 27 2013 13:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 12:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Tancredo has backed out of the bet to smoke a joint. What was the bet?
That he would smoke Marijuana if Colorado legalized the drug for recreational use which he said would never happen.
|
On January 27 2013 13:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 13:25 aksfjh wrote:On January 27 2013 12:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Tancredo has backed out of the bet to smoke a joint. What was the bet? That he would smoke Marijuana if Colorado legalized the drug for recreational use which he said would never happen.
Politicians, am I right?!
|
I love to witness the hypocrisy of the two parties on the proposed proportional electoral college changes. The same Democrats that in theory want popular vote oppose a change that would make States' electoral votes be cast in a method more closely aligned with their popular vote total. And Republicans who demand reverence for the electoral college and refute any attempt to institute popular vote are the first to seize any opportunity to institute a system to reflect popular vote (in blue states only!) so they can win more electoral college votes.
It's naked political expediency, obviously.
|
On January 27 2013 09:27 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 08:15 white_horse wrote:
^What kind of non-electoral college are you guys thinking about? What does it even mean that the GOP only controls alaska and the great plains? Where the hell did you get that idea? If it's a straight-up popular vote, like it should be, then everyone's vote is worth the same and it forces candidates to beg for votes in all 50 states.
A democrat in alabama might as well just vote for the republican ticket because that state is going to be red no matter what you do. Which means your vote is screwed. Which means you aren't fairly represented at the end of the election. That's because the US is a "republic" and not a "democracy". It is a federation of states, not individuals. Individuals didn't even get the right to vote for the President until the constitution was later amended. Everyone's vote is not the same. You are essential fighting other people in your state. Swing state votes are much much more valuable.
The United States is a democracy (and a republic, the two aren't mutually exclusive), as the term is defined today by political scientists and politicians alike. You're thinking of the definition of "democracy" found and studied in political theory.
|
On January 27 2013 14:23 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I love to witness the hypocrisy of the two parties on the proposed proportional electoral college changes. The same Democrats that in theory want popular vote oppose a change that would make States' electoral votes be cast in a method more closely aligned with their popular vote total. And Republicans who demand reverence for the electoral college and refute any attempt to institute popular vote are the first to seize any opportunity to institute a system to reflect popular vote (in blue states only!) so they can win more electoral college votes.
It's naked political expediency, obviously.
The clear distinction here is that there are no strings attached to either of the "popular" Democrat/liberal suggestions. First one being a pact for electoral votes to be cast based on national popular vote, where the winner of the popular vote nation wide automatically gets a state's electoral votes. The second being that electoral votes get cast by a pure reflection of popular vote within a state. Either one gives power directly to the people to elect the president, eliminating the need to come up with excuses why a candidate won over another. In this sense, any leader we end up with, we can only blame ourselves for the outcome instead of the system (for the most part).
The Republican solution just breaks the system in another way. It doesn't give the people any more power than they have now, and possibly even less. By taking control of the redistricting process, a party is given an excessive amount of power to control the people in ways that are obfuscated by the complexity of the system and the span over which strategical advantages can be gained. The justification for this being that "both parties can abuse that system!" It's the same nonsense that Republicans hide behind in the Senate and filibusters, while a majority of the population is sick of it. Our society apparently has to be legislated under the assumption that some, but not all, people will abuse the system as much as possible given the opportunity. Without doing so, we end up with unethical and reckless actions under the excuse, "Well, it's not explicitly against the rules."
|
On January 27 2013 15:09 aksfjh wrote:
Our society apparently has to be legislated under the assumption that some, but not all, people will abuse the system as much as possible given the opportunity. Without doing so, we end up with unethical and reckless actions under the excuse, "Well, it's not explicitly against the rules."
Aha! what sort of society has ideology of this kind?
|
On January 27 2013 15:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 14:23 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I love to witness the hypocrisy of the two parties on the proposed proportional electoral college changes. The same Democrats that in theory want popular vote oppose a change that would make States' electoral votes be cast in a method more closely aligned with their popular vote total. And Republicans who demand reverence for the electoral college and refute any attempt to institute popular vote are the first to seize any opportunity to institute a system to reflect popular vote (in blue states only!) so they can win more electoral college votes.
It's naked political expediency, obviously. The clear distinction here is that there are no strings attached to either of the "popular" Democrat/liberal suggestions. First one being a pact for electoral votes to be cast based on national popular vote, where the winner of the popular vote nation wide automatically gets a state's electoral votes. The second being that electoral votes get cast by a pure reflection of popular vote within a state. Either one gives power directly to the people to elect the president, eliminating the need to come up with excuses why a candidate won over another. In this sense, any leader we end up with, we can only blame ourselves for the outcome instead of the system (for the most part). The Republican solution just breaks the system in another way. It doesn't give the people any more power than they have now, and possibly even less. By taking control of the redistricting process, a party is given an excessive amount of power to control the people in ways that are obfuscated by the complexity of the system and the span over which strategical advantages can be gained. The justification for this being that "both parties can abuse that system!" It's the same nonsense that Republicans hide behind in the Senate and filibusters, while a majority of the population is sick of it. Our society apparently has to be legislated under the assumption that some, but not all, people will abuse the system as much as possible given the opportunity. Without doing so, we end up with unethical and reckless actions under the excuse, "Well, it's not explicitly against the rules."
I think it's a distinction without a difference. The principle isn't a conditional good. A state that makes its electors represent the vote more closely is acting in service of this direct representation principle. It's not worse for the country or even the citizens of which 40% or more may have a preference which amounts to 0% representation. But the party with an advantage in a state has to give up their over-representation to do so. And that's something Democrats will not do. So to call on democratic principles of equal representation while opposing just that in blue states is an hypocrisy.
|
On January 27 2013 14:23 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I love to witness the hypocrisy of the two parties on the proposed proportional electoral college changes. The same Democrats that in theory want popular vote oppose a change that would make States' electoral votes be cast in a method more closely aligned with their popular vote total. And Republicans who demand reverence for the electoral college and refute any attempt to institute popular vote are the first to seize any opportunity to institute a system to reflect popular vote (in blue states only!) so they can win more electoral college votes.
It's naked political expediency, obviously.
I disagree with this part purely because it wouldnt do the thing you are saying it does. Take Pennsylvania for example who voted for Obama by a decent margin but if it were broken up by districts than he would have gotten 5 of the 19 due to some very good gerrymandering. At least with current system the guy who won the popular vote won the election but if this meathod were adopted the guy who won the popular vote loses the election so its even further from there ideal than the current system.
|
Non-USA citizen here, I am wondering why don't you guys just go with the guy getting the most votes ? I think it is this way in the rest of the world. So strange and seems undemocratic that your vote worth more than the one of someone else from another state
|
On January 27 2013 19:12 Ottoxlol wrote:
Non-USA citizen here, I am wondering why don't you guys just go with the guy getting the most votes ? I think it is this way in the rest of the world. So strange and seems undemocratic that your vote worth more than the one of someone else from another state
Because of the Electoral College.... States vote for the president, not the people.
|
On January 27 2013 19:12 Ottoxlol wrote:
Non-USA citizen here, I am wondering why don't you guys just go with the guy getting the most votes ? I think it is this way in the rest of the world. So strange and seems undemocratic that your vote worth more than the one of someone else from another state
We do go by popular vote its just at the state level rather than the national level. Remember the US began as a collection of governments rather than a single government. So when the national government was formed some compromises had to be reached since the states didn't want to give up full sovereignty.
Part of that compromise is the electoral college. Without it state with low population would never have joined the union. For a modern example look to the EU - small countries want (and get) an extra say.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if we are talking about a broadly hobbesian outlook, i don't see it as the foundation of freedom at all. that kind of outlook justifies all kind of tyranny, while a true free society depends on each of its members believing in a high degree of autonomy for its members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
