|
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 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?
We would need to change the fundamental way to run elections to standardize recounting rules. We would need to strip the states of their power to run elections and pass their own laws governing them. It would be the only way to assure the entire process is done the same way across all 50 states.
|
On February 07 2019 23:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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? We would need to change the fundamental way to run elections to standardize recounting rules. We would need to strip the states of their power to run elections and pass their own laws governing them. It would be the only way to assure the entire process is done the same way across all 50 states.
How would it cause problems then, but it isn't already a sticking point right now? Regardless of whether you have an EC or a direct vote count that reports to Washington, why would the lack of homogeneity be a problem only in the latter case?
|
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. . What happens when a state thinks another states count is bullshit now? Why if 5 rural states like how California counts votes now?
These things do not change from how they are now when you change how it all gets processed at the end.
Recount is more of a thing you have to think about, but how often is the national difference in popular vote close enough that a recount might be needed? Some basic guideline for the federal government to follow can surely be devised. Also note that 'its close so we should count again' is not necessarily a given. Here in the Netherlands it doesn't matter if a vote is close, we don't recount unless there is reason to believe mistakes have been made.
|
On February 07 2019 23:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 23:34 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2019 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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? We would need to change the fundamental way to run elections to standardize recounting rules. We would need to strip the states of their power to run elections and pass their own laws governing them. It would be the only way to assure the entire process is done the same way across all 50 states. How would it cause problems then, but it isn't already a sticking point right now? Regardless of whether you have an EC or a direct vote count that reports to Washington, why would the lack of homogeneity be a problem only in the latter case?
Because in a close election for president, it is normally only one state(Florida in 2000) that has to perform a recount. If it was popular vote, it would mean that every state would have to perform a recount.
With Bush v Gore, they filed a lawsuit to stop the recount because two counties were using different systems to recount the ballots. And there is reasonable speculation that the outcome would have been different if that recount had continued. And that was one state.
To be clear, I believe it is possible in theory. Of course the US could conduct elections as well as any other modern nation. I just do not believe that is likely to be the outcome and I don’t believe it will give people more faith in our election system.
|
On February 07 2019 23:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 23:34 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2019 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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? We would need to change the fundamental way to run elections to standardize recounting rules. We would need to strip the states of their power to run elections and pass their own laws governing them. It would be the only way to assure the entire process is done the same way across all 50 states. How would it cause problems then, but it isn't already a sticking point right now? Regardless of whether you have an EC or a direct vote count that reports to Washington, why would the lack of homogeneity be a problem only in the latter case?
Currently, a state gets x votes, and gets to decide how it distributes them. Other states don't really care how they decide this.
If you have popular vote, the state gets votes based on how many people live in it. So one state could complain that another lied about the amount of people in it (or counted those people in a different way that amounts to them having more people = more power).
I see the problem, and that it is hard to solve due to institutional inertia. But the current system is just so obviously bad, especially compared to what other countries have. It seems to me that the thought process is often "Well, we can't change it anyways, so lets just be happy with the system we have and think about reasons as to why it is actually not as bad as it looks. Also, lets not talk about how bad it looks all the time."
There are two sets of arguments for the current system:
"It would be too hard to change", which is kind of a non-argument, because it doesn't actually combat the point being made, which is that the current system is bad and that there are better ones which we already know and have seen in practice. It is just a defeatist argument.
And the other ones like "States should have power, not people" and "rural people will be sad" which point out (perceived) flaws of a new system, but never acknowledge the problems of the current systems and weighs them against those perceived new flaws, giving the incorrect impression that the current system is basically flawless.
|
I would argue that it is impossible to change because the states won’t vote to reduce their own power. It would be sort of like the EU voting for EU countries to use the new EU election systems and let the EU run it.
|
On February 07 2019 23:56 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that it is impossible to change because the states won’t vote to reduce their own power. It would be sort of like the EU voting for EU countries to use the new EU election systems and let the EU run it. I agree that some states will not vote to change the EC and therefor its effectively impossible to do, but that is not how I read your post about how the US is not set up to hold a national election. If that was wrong then sorry, we had a miss understanding.
|
On February 07 2019 23:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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!
Sounds like a win-win to me!
On February 07 2019 23:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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? We would need to change the fundamental way to run elections to standardize recounting rules. We would need to strip the states of their power to run elections and pass their own laws governing them. It would be the only way to assure the entire process is done the same way across all 50 states.
So what we're comparing is a newer, more modern, better way of deciding literally the most important thing in our country (who our president is) to the fact that some people are going to whine about states' rights as a justification for sabotaging national elections?
|
They taught me in US History that the EC in rural areas outweighed us in the Cities. Just my 2c...
|
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.
|
|
|
On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.
But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?
|
On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote. But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?
Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.
|
|
|
I think a legitimate constitutional convention will be called sometime in the next few decades, so we might as well work on potential changes in preparation 
|
On February 07 2019 18:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 18:44 Slydie wrote: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.
This would be less of a problem if the Senate wasn't the upper chamber that was responsible for things like confirming judges.
On February 08 2019 00:57 farvacola wrote:I think a legitimate constitutional convention will be called sometime in the next few decades, so we might as well work on potential changes in preparation
This is bad for the same reasons people are unhappy with the Senate and EC. The way a constitutional convention works gives disproportionate power to less populated states.
|
Bad or not, there’s a good chance it happens. It’s a hope for the best and prepare for the worst kind of thing. Proponents of balanced budget amendment garbage have been chomping at that bit for some time now.
|
The Us government was designed to limit the tyranny of the majority and prevent it from causing strife between the rural and populated states. If people want to change the rules, the rural state need to buy in too.
|
On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote. But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country? Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.
In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?
|
On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote. But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country? Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be. In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?
I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are.
Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads.
Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
