|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 07 2019 06:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 07 2019 06:22 Sermokala wrote:
You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system.
I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it.
You only think it's fine becuase it gives disproportionate power to your favoured political party, above a representative of the population of the whole. There's nothing special about the rural voters that should be favoured over urban voters. If those rural states happen to be urban and those urbanised states happened to be rural, but with the same political parties and what they favour were the same, you wouldn't care for the entire countryside. No, he thinks it is fine because he has been educated on how the US government works and why it is designed the way it is designed. We literally teach it in schools. Unlike a lot of other people who look at a system and say “That is weird, not democracy and therefore stupid.” This could be applied to many governments without a full understanding of how they work. For example: The UK system of government is stupid because they need a blessing from the Queen to do things and have something call the shadow cabinet, which sounds like a bunch something people playing Eve Online would be super into on the role play forums. And apparently someone can put 60 years of international agreements to a popular vote with zero plan for implementation.
Now, I know that isn’t true because I’m not a potato. I would appreciate people from the EU to hold off the US governmental systems just because the makeup of our country is wildly different than any nation in Europe.
We all went to school, we all get the idea behind the EC. Some of us just don't agree with it. The system might have been relevant back when it was written, but these days reaching the masses isn't hard.
|
On February 07 2019 07:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
So, Plansix, with your example of a woefully mischaracterised system of government of UK, where has anybody mischaracterised electoral college? Your explanation of everything related to USA, as USA is special as the explanation is getting rather wearisome.
Also please don't use EU as a shorthand for rest of the world lol.
The Presidency is the sole office in federal government that is not elected by popular vote. It was created to assure the lower population states stayed in the union. Also it was designed to assure that the presidency was not completely beholden to the large cities and population centers of the US for election or re-election. The urban/rural divide that has (re)emerged in the recent years is nothing new in the US. In fact is can be argued that it is one of the core conflicts in US history. The founding fathers saw this and designed the presidency to assure it could not ignore low population states.
The reason that people are upset about the EC in this era has more to do with how lack luster congress has been for the last + 20 years, since the Republican takeover under Newt. As I have cited before, Newt’s efforts to destroy the power bases of cross party collations of representatives in the House gutted congresses ability to check the presidency. Newt turn the House from a body of that held the power of different states and groups within the country to a tool of the party in power and the lapdog for the president of the same party.
This makes the minority feel helpless, as there is no venue for them to express their displeasure or intact change. All the actions they see are coming from the executive branch and assume that the property is the EC doesn’t represent them. But the reality is there is an entire branch of the government that should be sticking up for their states and keeping the president in line. And changing the electoral college won’t change that dynamic. The minority party will still feel powerless and unable to enact change, even if the president is elected by popular vote.
And as Sermokala correctly pointed out, if the Presidency was elected by popular vote, the remaining states that didn’t matter would send their overwhelming majority of senators to congress to tell the majority elected president to fuck off. Because congress is still elected by popular vote and they control all the money.
On February 07 2019 07:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 06:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 07 2019 06:22 Sermokala wrote:
You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system.
I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it.
You only think it's fine becuase it gives disproportionate power to your favoured political party, above a representative of the population of the whole. There's nothing special about the rural voters that should be favoured over urban voters. If those rural states happen to be urban and those urbanised states happened to be rural, but with the same political parties and what they favour were the same, you wouldn't care for the entire countryside. No, he thinks it is fine because he has been educated on how the US government works and why it is designed the way it is designed. We literally teach it in schools. Unlike a lot of other people who look at a system and say “That is weird, not democracy and therefore stupid.” This could be applied to many governments without a full understanding of how they work. For example: The UK system of government is stupid because they need a blessing from the Queen to do things and have something call the shadow cabinet, which sounds like a bunch something people playing Eve Online would be super into on the role play forums. And apparently someone can put 60 years of international agreements to a popular vote with zero plan for implementation.
Now, I know that isn’t true because I’m not a potato. I would appreciate people from the EU to hold off the US governmental systems just because the makeup of our country is wildly different than any nation in Europe. We all went to school, we all get the idea behind the EC. Some of us just don't agree with it. The system might have been relevant back when it was written, but these days reaching the masses isn't hard.
What system would you propose that would assure the President represent all the states the people within those states?
|
On February 07 2019 07:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 07:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
So, Plansix, with your example of a woefully mischaracterised system of government of UK, where has anybody mischaracterised electoral college? Your explanation of everything related to USA, as USA is special as the explanation is getting rather wearisome.
Also please don't use EU as a shorthand for rest of the world lol. The Presidency is the sole office in federal government that is not elected by popular vote. It was created to assure the lower population states stayed in the union. Also it was designed to assure that the presidency was not completely beholden to the large cities and population centers of the US for election or re-election. The urban/rural divide that has (re)emerged in the recent years is nothing new in the US. In fact is can be argued that it is one of the core conflicts in US history. The founding fathers saw this and designed the presidency to assure it could not ignore low population states. The reason that people are upset about the EC in this era has more to do with how lack luster congress has been for the last + 20 years, since the Republican takeover under Newt. As I have cited before, Newt’s efforts to destroy the power bases of cross party collations of representatives in the House gutted congresses ability to check the presidency. Newt turn the House from a body of that held the power of different states and groups within the country to a tool of the party in power and the lapdog for the president of the same party. This makes the minority feel helpless, as there is no venue for them to express their displeasure or intact change. All the actions they see are coming from the executive branch and assume that the property is the EC doesn’t represent them. But the reality is there is an entire branch of the government that should be sticking up for their states and keeping the president in line. And changing the electoral college won’t change that dynamic. The minority party will still feel powerless and unable to enact change, even if the president is elected by popular vote. And as Sermokala correctly pointed out, if the Presidency was elected by popular vote, the remaining states that didn’t matter would send their overwhelming majority of senators to congress to tell the majority elected president to fuck off. Because congress is still elected by popular vote and they control all the money. Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 07:24 IyMoon wrote:On February 07 2019 06:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 07 2019 06:22 Sermokala wrote:
You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system.
I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it.
You only think it's fine becuase it gives disproportionate power to your favoured political party, above a representative of the population of the whole. There's nothing special about the rural voters that should be favoured over urban voters. If those rural states happen to be urban and those urbanised states happened to be rural, but with the same political parties and what they favour were the same, you wouldn't care for the entire countryside. No, he thinks it is fine because he has been educated on how the US government works and why it is designed the way it is designed. We literally teach it in schools. Unlike a lot of other people who look at a system and say “That is weird, not democracy and therefore stupid.” This could be applied to many governments without a full understanding of how they work. For example: The UK system of government is stupid because they need a blessing from the Queen to do things and have something call the shadow cabinet, which sounds like a bunch something people playing Eve Online would be super into on the role play forums. And apparently someone can put 60 years of international agreements to a popular vote with zero plan for implementation.
Now, I know that isn’t true because I’m not a potato. I would appreciate people from the EU to hold off the US governmental systems just because the makeup of our country is wildly different than any nation in Europe. We all went to school, we all get the idea behind the EC. Some of us just don't agree with it. The system might have been relevant back when it was written, but these days reaching the masses isn't hard. What system would you propose that would assure the President represent all the states the people within those states?
Something closer to a popular vote?
To be honest, can a president really represent all of America? Should a president consider all of America? Ofcourse, but can one really represent all of us?
|
The President, by virtue of being 1 person from 1 party will never represent 'all'.
That is what Congress is for.
|
On February 07 2019 07:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 07:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
So, Plansix, with your example of a woefully mischaracterised system of government of UK, where has anybody mischaracterised electoral college? Your explanation of everything related to USA, as USA is special as the explanation is getting rather wearisome.
Also please don't use EU as a shorthand for rest of the world lol. The Presidency is the sole office in federal government that is not elected by popular vote. It was created to assure the lower population states stayed in the union. Also it was designed to assure that the presidency was not completely beholden to the large cities and population centers of the US for election or re-election. The urban/rural divide that has (re)emerged in the recent years is nothing new in the US. In fact is can be argued that it is one of the core conflicts in US history. The founding fathers saw this and designed the presidency to assure it could not ignore low population states. The reason that people are upset about the EC in this era has more to do with how lack luster congress has been for the last + 20 years, since the Republican takeover under Newt. As I have cited before, Newt’s efforts to destroy the power bases of cross party collations of representatives in the House gutted congresses ability to check the presidency. Newt turn the House from a body of that held the power of different states and groups within the country to a tool of the party in power and the lapdog for the president of the same party. This makes the minority feel helpless, as there is no venue for them to express their displeasure or intact change. All the actions they see are coming from the executive branch and assume that the property is the EC doesn’t represent them. But the reality is there is an entire branch of the government that should be sticking up for their states and keeping the president in line. And changing the electoral college won’t change that dynamic. The minority party will still feel powerless and unable to enact change, even if the president is elected by popular vote. And as Sermokala correctly pointed out, if the Presidency was elected by popular vote, the remaining states that didn’t matter would send their overwhelming majority of senators to congress to tell the majority elected president to fuck off. Because congress is still elected by popular vote and they control all the money. Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 07:24 IyMoon wrote:On February 07 2019 06:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 07 2019 06:22 Sermokala wrote:
You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system.
I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it.
You only think it's fine becuase it gives disproportionate power to your favoured political party, above a representative of the population of the whole. There's nothing special about the rural voters that should be favoured over urban voters. If those rural states happen to be urban and those urbanised states happened to be rural, but with the same political parties and what they favour were the same, you wouldn't care for the entire countryside. No, he thinks it is fine because he has been educated on how the US government works and why it is designed the way it is designed. We literally teach it in schools. Unlike a lot of other people who look at a system and say “That is weird, not democracy and therefore stupid.” This could be applied to many governments without a full understanding of how they work. For example: The UK system of government is stupid because they need a blessing from the Queen to do things and have something call the shadow cabinet, which sounds like a bunch something people playing Eve Online would be super into on the role play forums. And apparently someone can put 60 years of international agreements to a popular vote with zero plan for implementation.
Now, I know that isn’t true because I’m not a potato. I would appreciate people from the EU to hold off the US governmental systems just because the makeup of our country is wildly different than any nation in Europe. We all went to school, we all get the idea behind the EC. Some of us just don't agree with it. The system might have been relevant back when it was written, but these days reaching the masses isn't hard. What system would you propose that would assure the President represent all the states the people within those states?
The EC was designed to balance the power of high population states with that of low population states (so that slavery would be protected). This doesn't make sense today because, e.g., Vermont shares very little common interest with North Dakota.
This is because the current political divide isn't based upon state population. Instead it's between "liberals" and "conservatives."
As a result of the EC there are plenty of liberals living in red states who don't get a say in presidential elections, and plenty of conservatives living in blue states who suffer from the same lack of representation. A presidential election based purely on popular votes would ensure that all of these folks receive equal representation.
|
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power.
|
Most democratic presidents would win the popular vote. If tomorrow the electoral college was changed, ans so was article 1 section 3 of the constitution, then you could disband the GOP and split the democratic party in half. But the electoral college is what determines the outcome of the election. It is almost like saying 'If only women were allowed to vote, a women could be US president'. Yes, I agree. I don't know if Warren would win the popular vote, probably. But she would not get elected as president.
To me, the lack of 'one person, one vote' is much much worse than the Putin-Trump conspiracy of 2016. And the latter is basically not preventable. But the constitution you can change right now, if your politicians had the will to do so.
As for blackface, of course it is racist. I don't get the 'but people think it is entertaining'-line. The Dutch have blackfaces in a children's festivity, and that is racist as fuck. Even though lots of left wing liberal Dutch people dress up as black slaves. So when you are some regressive conservative democratic politician, of course you are also engaging in racist behavior if you do so. Ok, maybe he did it because of peer pressure or because he didn't care and he doesn't really hold racist views. That is a convincing argument. But he is not some guy working at Wallmart. He is now governor of one of your states.
|
On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power.
The argument always seems to be "Some people deserve to have more of a say in things than others". Usually, "Rural people need to be balanced with urban people". There is never an explanation as to why the vote of a rural person should be more valuable than the vote of an urban person, it just seems to be taken as an axiom that that is how things should be because that is how they currently are.
But you could make the exact same logical arguments by dividing the population arbitrarily into any two groups, and saying that they both need to have equal power. Why does "rural people need to have equal power to urban people" make sense, and "people from chicago need to have equal power to people who are not from chicago" is absurd?
Votes should be equal. In the US system, they are not. But because you need consensus to change that system, and one party always profits from the inequality of the votes, because their voters are worth more, it is impossible to change this. That does not mean that it is good that it works like that. It just means that it is bad and hard to change.
Also, this does not only impact the presidency. Senate is similarly effected, where each vote in a state with low population is worth far more than each vote in a state with high population. Only the house is not as effected, but still has the problems that a FPTP winner takes it all system brings with it.
|
On February 07 2019 08:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. The argument always seems to be "Some people deserve to have more of a say in things than others". Usually, "Rural people need to be balanced with urban people". There is never an explanation as to why the vote of a rural person should be more valuable than the vote of an urban person, it just seems to be taken as an axiom that that is how things should be because that is how they currently are.
It's also a form of identity politics under any non partisan definition of the term.
|
On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power.
One can propose said changes but they have to at the same time take into account what those changes would fundamentally do to the nation. Why should the states between the mountains stay in the country that they now have no political relevance in? When California wants to build a pipeline from the great lakes to the golden coast whats to stop them?
Replacing one group who feels like they're unequally represented with another group who is unequally represented isn't a valid argument.
|
On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power.
The low key push by the Democrats to end the filibuster is something that could really shake up the dynamic in the Senate. The EC is another problem. But I think making election day a national holiday would do more for the state of Washington than making a big push to change the EC.
On February 07 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. One can propose said changes but they have to at the same time take into account what those changes would fundamentally do to the nation. Why should the states between the mountains stay in the country that they now have no political relevance in? When California wants to build a pipeline from the great lakes to the golden coast whats to stop them? Replacing one group who feels like they're unequally represented with another group who is unequally represented isn't a valid argument.
Considering the current state of government and how last couple Republican presidents won, it is something that needs to be looked into. Especially given the quality of the Republican candidates and their long term impacts on this country. Lets not forget that Bush also lost the popular vote vs Gore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election
For the sake of the Republic, we cannot have a majority population that consistently feels like they are being deprived representation in one third of the government. That is a recipe for conflict, which you are starting to see in this country. That doesn't mean getting rid of the EC. But elections and how they are run might have to change.
|
On February 07 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. One can propose said changes but they have to at the same time take into account what those changes would fundamentally do to the nation. Why should the states between the mountains stay in the country that they now have no political relevance in? When California wants to build a pipeline from the great lakes to the golden coast whats to stop them? Replacing one group who feels like they're unequally represented with another group who is unequally represented isn't a valid argument.
Replacing a group who is unequally represented with another group that includes the majority of the people seems like a valid argument to me. Both sides are not equal here.
Besides, this idea that the coast would dominate forgets to remember that the coast is not a monolith. It is a majority left, sure. but 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump. 4.5 million people whos vote really did not matter in the slightest. They might as well have all stayed home. Or at least not filled out top of ticket
|
|
|
On February 07 2019 09:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. The low key push by the Democrats to end the filibuster is something that could really shake up the dynamic in the Senate. The EC is another problem. But I think making election day a national holiday would do more for the state of Washington than making a big push to change the EC. Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. One can propose said changes but they have to at the same time take into account what those changes would fundamentally do to the nation. Why should the states between the mountains stay in the country that they now have no political relevance in? When California wants to build a pipeline from the great lakes to the golden coast whats to stop them? Replacing one group who feels like they're unequally represented with another group who is unequally represented isn't a valid argument. Considering the current state of government and how last couple Republican presidents won, it is something that needs to be looked into. Especially given the quality of the Republican candidates and their long term impacts on this country. Lets not forget that Bush also lost the popular vote vs Gore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_electionFor the sake of the Republic, we cannot have a majority population that consistently feels like they are being deprived representation in one third of the government. That is a recipe for conflict, which you are starting to see in this country. That doesn't mean getting rid of the EC. But elections and how they are run might have to change.
Your dig about the "quality" of candidates aside we don't disagree on the issue that there are problems. What my argument is against the clamor to get rid of the EC. I fail to see a system proposed that doesn't wholesale get rid of the EC.
Making the majority of the nation terrain wise irrelevant is a much larger recipe for conflict. Making the coasts the only reasonable place to campaign for president would do that. Tell me a system that doesn't do that.
|
United States24793 Posts
Switching to a popular vote for president doesn't change the fact that low population density states get the same representation in the senate as large states like California. I don't see a problem with those states having less influence over the executive branch. If they want more power they will need to attract more people.
|
On February 07 2019 09:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 09:19 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. The low key push by the Democrats to end the filibuster is something that could really shake up the dynamic in the Senate. The EC is another problem. But I think making election day a national holiday would do more for the state of Washington than making a big push to change the EC. On February 07 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. One can propose said changes but they have to at the same time take into account what those changes would fundamentally do to the nation. Why should the states between the mountains stay in the country that they now have no political relevance in? When California wants to build a pipeline from the great lakes to the golden coast whats to stop them? Replacing one group who feels like they're unequally represented with another group who is unequally represented isn't a valid argument. Considering the current state of government and how last couple Republican presidents won, it is something that needs to be looked into. Especially given the quality of the Republican candidates and their long term impacts on this country. Lets not forget that Bush also lost the popular vote vs Gore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_electionFor the sake of the Republic, we cannot have a majority population that consistently feels like they are being deprived representation in one third of the government. That is a recipe for conflict, which you are starting to see in this country. That doesn't mean getting rid of the EC. But elections and how they are run might have to change. Your dig about the "quality" of candidates aside we don't disagree on the issue that there are problems. What my argument is against the clamor to get rid of the EC. I fail to see a system proposed that doesn't wholesale get rid of the EC. Making the majority of the nation terrain wise irrelevant is a much larger recipe for conflict. Making the coasts the only reasonable place to campaign for president would do that. Tell me a system that doesn't do that.
I don't get this idea that the coast would be the only place to campaign.
Taxas has 30 million people
Tennessee has 7 million, Indiana 6.7, Missouri 6.
The idea that people are just going to skip states with 7 million people is crazy.
Over half the states have 4.5 million + people living there. Those people are going to be courted.
|
On February 07 2019 09:40 micronesia wrote:
Switching to a popular vote for president doesn't change the fact that low population density states get the same representation in the senate as large states like California. I don't see a problem with those states having less influence over the executive branch. If they want more power they will need to attract more people.
You don't see a problem with the super majority of senators coming from states that are irrelevant to the presidential campaign?
States can't change basic geographical conditions of the country.
|
On February 07 2019 09:43 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 09:38 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 09:19 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. The low key push by the Democrats to end the filibuster is something that could really shake up the dynamic in the Senate. The EC is another problem. But I think making election day a national holiday would do more for the state of Washington than making a big push to change the EC. On February 07 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. One can propose said changes but they have to at the same time take into account what those changes would fundamentally do to the nation. Why should the states between the mountains stay in the country that they now have no political relevance in? When California wants to build a pipeline from the great lakes to the golden coast whats to stop them? Replacing one group who feels like they're unequally represented with another group who is unequally represented isn't a valid argument. Considering the current state of government and how last couple Republican presidents won, it is something that needs to be looked into. Especially given the quality of the Republican candidates and their long term impacts on this country. Lets not forget that Bush also lost the popular vote vs Gore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_electionFor the sake of the Republic, we cannot have a majority population that consistently feels like they are being deprived representation in one third of the government. That is a recipe for conflict, which you are starting to see in this country. That doesn't mean getting rid of the EC. But elections and how they are run might have to change. Your dig about the "quality" of candidates aside we don't disagree on the issue that there are problems. What my argument is against the clamor to get rid of the EC. I fail to see a system proposed that doesn't wholesale get rid of the EC. Making the majority of the nation terrain wise irrelevant is a much larger recipe for conflict. Making the coasts the only reasonable place to campaign for president would do that. Tell me a system that doesn't do that. I don't get this idea that the coast would be the only place to campaign. Taxas has 30 million people Tennessee has 7 million, Indiana 6.7, Missouri 6. The idea that people are just going to skip states with 7 million people is crazy. Over half the states have 4.5 million + people living there. Those people are going to be courted.
Texas is a nation on the coast trust me I just looked at a map.
States are irrelevant when it comes to population. they're just lines on a map to your argument You want to turn the nation from 50 states into 383 Metropolitican statistical areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
|
On February 07 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 09:40 micronesia wrote:
Switching to a popular vote for president doesn't change the fact that low population density states get the same representation in the senate as large states like California. I don't see a problem with those states having less influence over the executive branch. If they want more power they will need to attract more people. You don't see a problem with the super majority of senators coming from states that are irrelevant to the presidential campaign? States can't change basic geographical conditions of the country.
Why do you think that they would be irrelevant? Their votes would be worth exactly as much as those of people everywhere else. Why would candidates ignore all those votes?
If anything, there is currently a larger incentive to ignore some voters, because their votes are literally worthless. Like those of republicans in California, or democrats in Texas.
|
On February 07 2019 07:59 Gorsameth wrote:
The President, by virtue of being 1 person from 1 party will never represent 'all'.
That is what Congress is for.
The fact that there are only two real parties, let alone parties at all, is the biggest fucking problem we have. Even bigger than the EC. Gerrymandering wouldn't be a thing. The vitriol and divisiveness we have now would be at worst greatly lessened. Compromise would be a necessity. Washington might actually work by virtue of people being able to (and required to) lean toward the middle on things.
In Federalist paper 10, Madison railed against "the violence of faction" and warned that "the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties". In number 9, Hamilton, called "domestic faction" the "cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government".
This problem is the bedrock on which the other issues are built.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
