|
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 |
United States24768 Posts
On February 07 2019 11:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 11:49 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 10:45 micronesia wrote:
Sermokala can you give one or two advantages of how rural voters are put at an unfair disadvantage due to it being more efficient for a presidential candidate to target urban votes? I think I understand the concern but I want to be sure. I don't understand the question sorry I think the disconect comes from what you mean by "advantages" or something around there. Simberto what you said makes no mathematical sense. I said it wouldn't be efficient. Why have a rally in front of thousands instead of ten thousand. kydadatim The argument is actually the reverse you're saying that the foundations of the nation need to change because of minor recent issues. I never said nothing can change I'm saying I having seen a proposal that solves the issues without bringing in many more. RIP GH for better or worse you had an impact. Sorry I meant to ask you for examples (not advantages) of the effect you were referring to. I'm not totally sure if I get how rural folk are put at a disadvantage by the use of a popular vote, per your earlier discussion. That the "electoral map" would be thrown out in exchange for an MSA map. Instead of looking at states you would look at heat maps of the nation's population colored in with the polling data for what certain actions might change.
You are speaking very vaguely and I cannot understand your point. Can you give specific examples of ways the rural voters would be disadvantaged if we switched to a popular vote for president? So far the only one I think I've seen has been that rallies will be focused on population centers in cities rather than in more rural areas, but while I'm not sure if that's true or false, I don't really care much for where rallies are... that seems like a small issue. Hopefully there are bigger ones.
|
On February 07 2019 12:06 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 11:49 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 10:45 micronesia wrote:
Sermokala can you give one or two advantages of how rural voters are put at an unfair disadvantage due to it being more efficient for a presidential candidate to target urban votes? I think I understand the concern but I want to be sure. I don't understand the question sorry I think the disconect comes from what you mean by "advantages" or something around there. Simberto what you said makes no mathematical sense. I said it wouldn't be efficient. Why have a rally in front of thousands instead of ten thousand. kydadatim The argument is actually the reverse you're saying that the foundations of the nation need to change because of minor recent issues. I never said nothing can change I'm saying I having seen a proposal that solves the issues without bringing in many more. RIP GH for better or worse you had an impact. Sorry I meant to ask you for examples (not advantages) of the effect you were referring to. I'm not totally sure if I get how rural folk are put at a disadvantage by the use of a popular vote, per your earlier discussion. That the "electoral map" would be thrown out in exchange for an MSA map. Instead of looking at states you would look at heat maps of the nation's population colored in with the polling data for what certain actions might change. You are speaking very vaguely and I cannot understand your point. Can you give specific examples of ways the rural voters would be disadvantaged if we switched to a popular vote for president? So far the only one I think I've seen has been that rallies will be focused on population centers in cities rather than in more rural areas, but while I'm not sure if that's true or false, I don't really care much for where rallies are... that seems like a small issue. Hopefully there are bigger ones.
I did give specific reasons and explanations for those reasons. Elections are about getting the most votes, therefore you campaign for more votes. You have a limited budget of money and time to do this, therefore to win you must use these resources the most efficient you can to win. Changing the presidential election changes the value of peoples votes in a way that disadvantages rual and less populated states by making it less efficient to spend resources on those states and people.
I can't give any real specific answers because I havn't heard any real proposal to changing the presidential election past "abolish the EC".
|
On February 07 2019 14:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 12:06 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 11:49 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 10:45 micronesia wrote:
Sermokala can you give one or two advantages of how rural voters are put at an unfair disadvantage due to it being more efficient for a presidential candidate to target urban votes? I think I understand the concern but I want to be sure. I don't understand the question sorry I think the disconect comes from what you mean by "advantages" or something around there. Simberto what you said makes no mathematical sense. I said it wouldn't be efficient. Why have a rally in front of thousands instead of ten thousand. kydadatim The argument is actually the reverse you're saying that the foundations of the nation need to change because of minor recent issues. I never said nothing can change I'm saying I having seen a proposal that solves the issues without bringing in many more. RIP GH for better or worse you had an impact. Sorry I meant to ask you for examples (not advantages) of the effect you were referring to. I'm not totally sure if I get how rural folk are put at a disadvantage by the use of a popular vote, per your earlier discussion. That the "electoral map" would be thrown out in exchange for an MSA map. Instead of looking at states you would look at heat maps of the nation's population colored in with the polling data for what certain actions might change. You are speaking very vaguely and I cannot understand your point. Can you give specific examples of ways the rural voters would be disadvantaged if we switched to a popular vote for president? So far the only one I think I've seen has been that rallies will be focused on population centers in cities rather than in more rural areas, but while I'm not sure if that's true or false, I don't really care much for where rallies are... that seems like a small issue. Hopefully there are bigger ones. I did give specific reasons and explanations for those reasons. Elections are about getting the most votes, therefore you campaign for more votes. You have a limited budget of money and time to do this, therefore to win you must use these resources the most efficient you can to win. Changing the presidential election changes the value of peoples votes in a way that disadvantages rual and less populated states by making it less efficient to spend resources on those states and people. I can't give any real specific answers because I haven't heard any real proposal to changing the presidential election past "abolish the EC".
Candidates already don't really pay attention to rural and smaller states.
For the most part the states aren't swing states or don't garner enough electors to be worth attention to try to flip. Right now the electoral college favors high elector count states that aren't consistent republican or democrat.
Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. These are the usual swing states.
Most states have above 20% rural(non metro) population, few states have a majority rural population or one even comes close to 40+%. None of the really rural states are swing states. Unless by rural you mean farmland state, in which case minnesota, iowa is it. By that i mean farmland with sizable relative population to the state because if total number of farms is the count you're going for california has a lot of farms.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/documentation.aspx#.UUyW30zIuSo］
This is how i'm defining rural, the same way the us government's defines it for the use in government support.
Actual rural voters are already not taken into account by presidents, for the most part. Appearing "rural", is more often than not just used to make them more relatable. Mostly because there are less actual rural people than people who "identify as rural" and are coded to appear to approve of things labeled as "rural" whether or not it actually is.
|
On February 07 2019 14:55 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 14:05 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 12:06 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 11:49 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 10:45 micronesia wrote:
Sermokala can you give one or two advantages of how rural voters are put at an unfair disadvantage due to it being more efficient for a presidential candidate to target urban votes? I think I understand the concern but I want to be sure. I don't understand the question sorry I think the disconect comes from what you mean by "advantages" or something around there. Simberto what you said makes no mathematical sense. I said it wouldn't be efficient. Why have a rally in front of thousands instead of ten thousand. kydadatim The argument is actually the reverse you're saying that the foundations of the nation need to change because of minor recent issues. I never said nothing can change I'm saying I having seen a proposal that solves the issues without bringing in many more. RIP GH for better or worse you had an impact. Sorry I meant to ask you for examples (not advantages) of the effect you were referring to. I'm not totally sure if I get how rural folk are put at a disadvantage by the use of a popular vote, per your earlier discussion. That the "electoral map" would be thrown out in exchange for an MSA map. Instead of looking at states you would look at heat maps of the nation's population colored in with the polling data for what certain actions might change. You are speaking very vaguely and I cannot understand your point. Can you give specific examples of ways the rural voters would be disadvantaged if we switched to a popular vote for president? So far the only one I think I've seen has been that rallies will be focused on population centers in cities rather than in more rural areas, but while I'm not sure if that's true or false, I don't really care much for where rallies are... that seems like a small issue. Hopefully there are bigger ones. I did give specific reasons and explanations for those reasons. Elections are about getting the most votes, therefore you campaign for more votes. You have a limited budget of money and time to do this, therefore to win you must use these resources the most efficient you can to win. Changing the presidential election changes the value of peoples votes in a way that disadvantages rual and less populated states by making it less efficient to spend resources on those states and people. I can't give any real specific answers because I haven't heard any real proposal to changing the presidential election past "abolish the EC". Candidates already don't really pay attention to rural and smaller states. For the most part the states aren't swing states or don't garner enough electors to be worth attention to try to flip. Right now the electoral college favors high elector count states that aren't consistent republican or democrat. Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. These are the usual swing states. Most states have above 20% rural(non metro) population, few states have a majority rural population or one even comes close to 40+%. None of the really rural states are swing states. Unless by rural you mean farmland state, in which case minnesota, iowa is it. By that i mean farmland with sizable relative population to the state because if total number of farms is the count you're going for california has a lot of farms. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/documentation.aspx#.UUyW30zIuSo］This is how i'm defining rural, the same way the us government's defines it for the use in government support. Actual rural voters are already not taken into account by presidents, for the most part. Appearing "rural", is more often than not just used to make them more relatable. Mostly because there are less actual rural people than people who "identify as rural" and are coded to appear to approve of things labeled as "rural" whether or not it actually is.
I don't understand what you're arguing. This sounds mostly like you don't accept that the EC only benefits the rual area and enslaves the urban states to their whims. This is side as well.
|
I'm just asserting that the EC doesn't actually benefit rural and smaller states. It benefits select states, the swing states.
Any argument saying that taking away the EC would harm rural and smaller states campaigning prospects ignores that there already isn't much of one.
In other words i do not understand the premise that the EC benefits small and rural states to begin with.
|
I'm mostly on board with the point that running a winner takes all system broken down into arbitrary geographic chunks results in most Americans being more or less taken for granted in presidential and Senate elections. Take a pretty blue state like New York. When it comes to presidential and senate elections, the votes cast for Republican candidates don't matter. The Dem Senate candidate won about 4 million to 2 million in 2018. If a presidential election goes like that, that's 2 million Republicans whose vote doesn't matter, and about 4 million Democrats whose vote is taken for granted.
|
Senate elections are a popular vote election limited to the state for the senator, it's kind of the point of the 17th amendment.
There is no middle man, or a conversion of votes into different values, or votes being packaged into groups and groups only being counted, so no votes are wasted. Every vote is counted equally and considered in the final tally for a senator, unlike the president.
|
On February 07 2019 17:22 semantics wrote:
Senate elections are a popular vote election limited to the state for the senator, it's kind of the point of the 17th amendment.
There is no middle man, or a conversion of votes into different values, or votes being packaged into groups and groups only being counted, so no votes are wasted. Every vote is counted equally and considered in the final tally for a senator, unlike the president.
Sure, except that the number of votes behind each senator varies so much you could almost argue the Senate is not even a democratic institution.
Your system is also built around not having parties but rather trusted and independent candidates elected from each state or region. Even the EC was made with that in mind, the educational level of the population was considered too low to be trusted, but at leaat they were given the power to elect who would decide for them.
Nowdays, the whole democratic system is just arcaic, unfair and dysfunctional.
|
On February 07 2019 18:44 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 17:22 semantics wrote:
Senate elections are a popular vote election limited to the state for the senator, it's kind of the point of the 17th amendment.
There is no middle man, or a conversion of votes into different values, or votes being packaged into groups and groups only being counted, so no votes are wasted. Every vote is counted equally and considered in the final tally for a senator, unlike the president. Sure, except that the number of votes behind each senator varies so much you could almost argue the Senate is not even a democratic institution. Your system is also built around not having parties but rather trusted and independent candidates elected from each state or region. Even the EC was made with that in mind, the educational level of the population was considered too low to be trusted, but at leaat they were given the power to elect who would decide for them. Nowdays, the whole democratic system is just arcaic, unfair and dysfunctional.
That's why we also have the House of Representatives, which is more proportional representation based on population.
I also agree with most other people here that our current EC election system for president is not ideal. I'm still not particularly convinced that counting each vote equally isn't ideal (popular vote over the current system that factors in electoral votes and state populations, winner-take-all rules that disenfranchises non- swing state voters, i.e., most people's votes currently don't matter because their state is already too blue or red to flip). I think it's odd that the location of a vote matters more than how many people support a candidate.
I'm also struggling to understand Sermokala's arguments on this topic.
|
United States24768 Posts
On February 07 2019 14:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 12:06 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 11:49 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 10:45 micronesia wrote:
Sermokala can you give one or two advantages of how rural voters are put at an unfair disadvantage due to it being more efficient for a presidential candidate to target urban votes? I think I understand the concern but I want to be sure. I don't understand the question sorry I think the disconect comes from what you mean by "advantages" or something around there. Simberto what you said makes no mathematical sense. I said it wouldn't be efficient. Why have a rally in front of thousands instead of ten thousand. kydadatim The argument is actually the reverse you're saying that the foundations of the nation need to change because of minor recent issues. I never said nothing can change I'm saying I having seen a proposal that solves the issues without bringing in many more. RIP GH for better or worse you had an impact. Sorry I meant to ask you for examples (not advantages) of the effect you were referring to. I'm not totally sure if I get how rural folk are put at a disadvantage by the use of a popular vote, per your earlier discussion. That the "electoral map" would be thrown out in exchange for an MSA map. Instead of looking at states you would look at heat maps of the nation's population colored in with the polling data for what certain actions might change. You are speaking very vaguely and I cannot understand your point. Can you give specific examples of ways the rural voters would be disadvantaged if we switched to a popular vote for president? So far the only one I think I've seen has been that rallies will be focused on population centers in cities rather than in more rural areas, but while I'm not sure if that's true or false, I don't really care much for where rallies are... that seems like a small issue. Hopefully there are bigger ones. I did give specific reasons and explanations for those reasons. Elections are about getting the most votes, therefore you campaign for more votes. You have a limited budget of money and time to do this, therefore to win you must use these resources the most efficient you can to win. Changing the presidential election changes the value of peoples votes in a way that disadvantages rual and less populated states by making it less efficient to spend resources on those states and people. I can't give any real specific answers because I havn't heard any real proposal to changing the presidential election past "abolish the EC".
I'm really trying to see your point Sermokala but it's proving rather difficult. Your position is that the reason why the current EC system (despite how screwed up it is) is preferable to a popular vote (or something similar) is because a popular vote disincentivizes candidates from 'spending time' in more rural areas on the campaign trail? Why do you care so much about where they 'spend time'? By 'resources' do you mean attack ads, billboards, and baby-kissing tours, or do you actually mean something more substantial. If the latter, can you identify some of those things? Those are the types of examples that might actually give your argument the support it may deserve. As of now, it just sounds like you don't want to feel neglected.
|
On February 07 2019 20:26 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 14:05 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 12:06 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 11:49 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 10:45 micronesia wrote:
Sermokala can you give one or two advantages of how rural voters are put at an unfair disadvantage due to it being more efficient for a presidential candidate to target urban votes? I think I understand the concern but I want to be sure. I don't understand the question sorry I think the disconect comes from what you mean by "advantages" or something around there. Simberto what you said makes no mathematical sense. I said it wouldn't be efficient. Why have a rally in front of thousands instead of ten thousand. kydadatim The argument is actually the reverse you're saying that the foundations of the nation need to change because of minor recent issues. I never said nothing can change I'm saying I having seen a proposal that solves the issues without bringing in many more. RIP GH for better or worse you had an impact. Sorry I meant to ask you for examples (not advantages) of the effect you were referring to. I'm not totally sure if I get how rural folk are put at a disadvantage by the use of a popular vote, per your earlier discussion. That the "electoral map" would be thrown out in exchange for an MSA map. Instead of looking at states you would look at heat maps of the nation's population colored in with the polling data for what certain actions might change. You are speaking very vaguely and I cannot understand your point. Can you give specific examples of ways the rural voters would be disadvantaged if we switched to a popular vote for president? So far the only one I think I've seen has been that rallies will be focused on population centers in cities rather than in more rural areas, but while I'm not sure if that's true or false, I don't really care much for where rallies are... that seems like a small issue. Hopefully there are bigger ones. I did give specific reasons and explanations for those reasons. Elections are about getting the most votes, therefore you campaign for more votes. You have a limited budget of money and time to do this, therefore to win you must use these resources the most efficient you can to win. Changing the presidential election changes the value of peoples votes in a way that disadvantages rual and less populated states by making it less efficient to spend resources on those states and people. I can't give any real specific answers because I havn't heard any real proposal to changing the presidential election past "abolish the EC". I'm really trying to see your point Sermokala but it's proving rather difficult. Your position is that the reason why the current EC system (despite how screwed up it is) is preferable to a popular vote (or something similar) is because a popular vote disincentivizes candidates from 'spending time' in more rural areas on the campaign trail? Why do you care so much about where they 'spend time'? By 'resources' do you mean attack ads, billboards, and baby-kissing tours, or do you actually mean something more substantial. If the latter, can you identify some of those things? Those are the types of examples that might actually give your argument the support it may deserve. As of now, it just sounds like you don't want to feel neglected.
Should also be reiterated that the EC doesn't make candidates spend more time in rural areas either. If the area is too blue or too red to flip, it doesn't matter if it has a population of 1000 or 1000000. The only places that matters currently are the few states which can go either way.
|
On February 07 2019 11:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 11:49 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 10:45 micronesia wrote:
Sermokala can you give one or two advantages of how rural voters are put at an unfair disadvantage due to it being more efficient for a presidential candidate to target urban votes? I think I understand the concern but I want to be sure. I don't understand the question sorry I think the disconect comes from what you mean by "advantages" or something around there. Simberto what you said makes no mathematical sense. I said it wouldn't be efficient. Why have a rally in front of thousands instead of ten thousand. kydadatim The argument is actually the reverse you're saying that the foundations of the nation need to change because of minor recent issues. I never said nothing can change I'm saying I having seen a proposal that solves the issues without bringing in many more. RIP GH for better or worse you had an impact. Sorry I meant to ask you for examples (not advantages) of the effect you were referring to. I'm not totally sure if I get how rural folk are put at a disadvantage by the use of a popular vote, per your earlier discussion. That the "electoral map" would be thrown out in exchange for an MSA map. Instead of looking at states you would look at heat maps of the nation's population colored in with the polling data for what certain actions might change. And you think currently its any different?
If a candidate goes to campaign in a swing state they will look at where they can reach the most people to have the most impact and that's not going to be a 'village' of 20 people in the middle of nowhere.
As for someone saying "Why should all branches be chosen the same way" I don't think they should be, and I don't think I have seen anyone actually advocate for the Senate to change aside from 1 loose mention.
The Senate as a 2 votes per state body to represent all states equally is fine.
|
It would be different. It would give a Republican candidate a reason to go to LA and a Democratic candidate a reason to campaign in Austin.
And it would be an incentive for a President of one or the other side to make policies "for these areas", albeit I don't know if that is actually a problem right now.
Of course it doesn't address the rural/urban divide.
|
It would just be trading in one set of problems for different problems. Least of which are logistical. Our country is not set up to hold a nation wide election where we count all the votes to determine the winner.
But removing the EC is politically impossible. It would require amended in the constitution, which would require a large number of states to screw themselves over and hand power to other states.
|
On February 07 2019 22:59 Plansix wrote:
It would just be trading in one set of problems for different problems. Least of which are logistical. Our country is not set up to hold a nation wide election where we count all the votes to determine the winner. You should take a moment to reflect on this statement and how stupid it sounds.
What exactly is the US not capable of doing in your eyes?
Counting voting slips in a location?
Communicating several numbers across a great distance through the use of telecommunication?
Add up basic numbers at a central location?
|
On February 07 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 22:59 Plansix wrote:
It would just be trading in one set of problems for different problems. Least of which are logistical. Our country is not set up to hold a nation wide election where we count all the votes to determine the winner. You should take a moment to reflect on this statement and how stupid it sounds. What exactly is the US not capable of doing in your eyes? Counting voting slips in a location? Communicating several numbers across a great distance through the use of telecommunication? Add up basic numbers at a central location?
Ok, so each state makes its own rules for election. How they vote. When they vote. How to register. How to mail in votes. And how the process is monitored. And it is set up and run by the state government and the party in power. The Federal government has very few powers to oversee this process or enforce any sort of mandate on how it should work.
So now, we change the system so popular vote matters. So each state is going to get a raw number of votes and send it into the Federal government to decide who wins the president. But what happens if one state thinks another state’s vote count is bullshit? Or five rural states don’t like how California counts votes? What if the election is close and we have 50 different states with different rules for recounts?
Unlike many countries in the world, we are not a nation with a single government. We are a nation of 50 separate states and one federal government that has limited powers over those states. .
|
On February 07 2019 14:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 12:06 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 11:49 micronesia wrote:On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 10:45 micronesia wrote:
Sermokala can you give one or two advantages of how rural voters are put at an unfair disadvantage due to it being more efficient for a presidential candidate to target urban votes? I think I understand the concern but I want to be sure. I don't understand the question sorry I think the disconect comes from what you mean by "advantages" or something around there. Simberto what you said makes no mathematical sense. I said it wouldn't be efficient. Why have a rally in front of thousands instead of ten thousand. kydadatim The argument is actually the reverse you're saying that the foundations of the nation need to change because of minor recent issues. I never said nothing can change I'm saying I having seen a proposal that solves the issues without bringing in many more. RIP GH for better or worse you had an impact. Sorry I meant to ask you for examples (not advantages) of the effect you were referring to. I'm not totally sure if I get how rural folk are put at a disadvantage by the use of a popular vote, per your earlier discussion. That the "electoral map" would be thrown out in exchange for an MSA map. Instead of looking at states you would look at heat maps of the nation's population colored in with the polling data for what certain actions might change. You are speaking very vaguely and I cannot understand your point. Can you give specific examples of ways the rural voters would be disadvantaged if we switched to a popular vote for president? So far the only one I think I've seen has been that rallies will be focused on population centers in cities rather than in more rural areas, but while I'm not sure if that's true or false, I don't really care much for where rallies are... that seems like a small issue. Hopefully there are bigger ones. I did give specific reasons and explanations for those reasons. Elections are about getting the most votes, therefore you campaign for more votes. You have a limited budget of money and time to do this, therefore to win you must use these resources the most efficient you can to win. Changing the presidential election changes the value of peoples votes in a way that disadvantages rual and less populated states by making it less efficient to spend resources on those states and people. I can't give any real specific answers because I havn't heard any real proposal to changing the presidential election past "abolish the EC".
the current system doesn't place value in people. It places value in geographical locations (i.e. state lines).
The argument of EC vs. popular vote is a values-based argument of valuing the fundamental unit of the state vs. the fundamental unit of the person. Your argument is saying that you don't value people and their individual votes, because the EC, unlike a popular vote, makes minority party votes in any given state actually useless, per the system. A rural person's vote in a popular vote actually counts, regardless of where candidates campaign.
Not only this, but the EC does the exact same thing that a popular vote does; emphasize particular places to campaign while marginalizing others. The only difference between the two systems is that minority party votes actually count for something in a popular vote system.
|
Pretty sure that if Brazil can do it without significant problems, the US can too. That you can't get political support for the amendment makes sense, but logistics?!
E: just for clarity, I mention Brazil specifically because they have a federal structure very similar to the US, are a roughly similar size country,, and have far far far bigger problems with both poverty and people living (and voting) in stupidly remote locations.
|
On February 07 2019 23:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2019 22:59 Plansix wrote:
It would just be trading in one set of problems for different problems. Least of which are logistical. Our country is not set up to hold a nation wide election where we count all the votes to determine the winner. You should take a moment to reflect on this statement and how stupid it sounds. What exactly is the US not capable of doing in your eyes? Counting voting slips in a location? Communicating several numbers across a great distance through the use of telecommunication? Add up basic numbers at a central location? Ok, so each state makes its own rules for election. How they vote. When they vote. How to register. How to mail in votes. And how the process is monitored. And it is set up and run by the state government and the party in power. The Federal government has very few powers to oversee this process or enforce any sort of mandate on how it should work. So now, we change the system so popular vote matters. So each state is going to get a raw number of votes and send it into the Federal government to decide who wins the president. But what happens if one state thinks another state’s vote count is bullshit? Or five rural states don’t like how California counts votes? What if the election is close and we have 50 different states with different rules for recounts? Unlike many countries in the world, we are not a nation with a single government. We are a nation of 50 separate states and one federal government that has limited powers over those states. .
I can see a potential issue with recount rules, but I don't understand what you mean by disliking how a state counts votes. How is there any wiggle room with counting a vote? You literally just... count the votes, right? What X factor is there? And in the broader scope, can't we just nationalize/ standardize recount rules to minimize variation between states?
|
On February 07 2019 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 23:24 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2019 22:59 Plansix wrote:
It would just be trading in one set of problems for different problems. Least of which are logistical. Our country is not set up to hold a nation wide election where we count all the votes to determine the winner. You should take a moment to reflect on this statement and how stupid it sounds. What exactly is the US not capable of doing in your eyes? Counting voting slips in a location? Communicating several numbers across a great distance through the use of telecommunication? Add up basic numbers at a central location? Ok, so each state makes its own rules for election. How they vote. When they vote. How to register. How to mail in votes. And how the process is monitored. And it is set up and run by the state government and the party in power. The Federal government has very few powers to oversee this process or enforce any sort of mandate on how it should work. So now, we change the system so popular vote matters. So each state is going to get a raw number of votes and send it into the Federal government to decide who wins the president. But what happens if one state thinks another state’s vote count is bullshit? Or five rural states don’t like how California counts votes? What if the election is close and we have 50 different states with different rules for recounts? Unlike many countries in the world, we are not a nation with a single government. We are a nation of 50 separate states and one federal government that has limited powers over those states. . I can see a potential issue with recount rules, but I don't understand what you mean by disliking how a state counts votes. How is there any wiggle room with counting a vote? You literally just count the votes, right? What X factor is there? And in the broader scope, can't we just nationalize/ standardize recount rules to minimize variation between states?
Given that it'd take a constitutional amendment anyway, yes, you can do exactly that. States would moan that they have the god given right to make their own rules on how/when/why to their own votes, but it's probably a minor issue compared to taking away the EC....
Not only that, but you could also make voter ID laws more homogeneous at the same time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
