EPTThe system is fair because any candidate who were to win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote, wins. Not only Republicans who lose the electoral vote but win the popular vote. You flip a mere 200k votes in the Rust Belt and Kamala would be walking from the Eisenhower Building to the White House in a couple months despite a popular shutout.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4580
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
oBlade
United States6678 Posts
The system is fair because any candidate who were to win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote, wins. Not only Republicans who lose the electoral vote but win the popular vote. You flip a mere 200k votes in the Rust Belt and Kamala would be walking from the Eisenhower Building to the White House in a couple months despite a popular shutout. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24511 Posts
On November 10 2024 01:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yes, because of Republicans. I'm not sure what you mean by "slaves", but if you're referring to criminals in prison, I think we've now ventured into a topic that isn't even remotely close to what voters care about. Prison reform is something that needs to happen, but no one is going to run on it, because no one cares about it. Working class people are too busy worrying about their own treatment to think about the treatment of prisoners. People are voting based on I'm not making an argument for them to vote for Republicans, just demonstrating to you that the "moving slightly in your ideal direction" thing isn't something tens of millions of voters actually experienced. Which gets us back to Zambrah's point about you being desperately out of touch. It pairs nicely with your total vindication of Harris for not so much as mentioning how she was voting on ending slavery in California, let alone rallying her supporters to the cause. It's with those factors in mind and Trump's open plans for attempting the mass deportation of millions of people I mention the foreseeable terror. You/libs/Dems will just as easily write off Democrats/their supporters complicity in immigrants internment in concentration camps as you have the genocide, slavery, and the rest as some variation of "unfortunate, but pragmatically necessary." | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46710 Posts
On November 10 2024 01:27 oBlade wrote: Lol EC abolitionists still abounding. The system is fair because any candidate who were to win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote, wins. Not only Republicans who lose the electoral vote but win the popular vote. You flip a mere 200k votes in the Rust Belt and Kamala would be walking from the Eisenhower Building to the White House in a couple months despite a popular shutout. That's not what fair means. The electoral college does not (correctly) proportionally split electoral votes. The country's population is not split in such a way that gives both sides an equal chance to win the electoral college. Such a thing is virtually impossible, given that Americans can move from one state to another. Fairness would be best preserved by allowing each person's vote to count equally, regardless of where they live. That's the popular vote, not the electoral vote. (I'll roll a fair six-sided die, with sides numbered 1-6. If I roll a 1, 2, 3, or 4, I win. If I roll a 5 or 6, you win. "But that's not fair", you might argue, "the game is stacked against me so that I have worse odds of victory!" It wouldn't be appropriate for me to respond with "But any person who has their number rolled wins! You can win and I can win. Therefore, the system is fair.") | ||
|
oBlade
United States6678 Posts
State voting power is not the same as it's rigged for one side. The words "Democratic Party" and "Republican Party" appear 0 times in the Constitution. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On November 10 2024 01:27 oBlade wrote: Lol EC abolitionists still abounding. The system is fair because any candidate who were to win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote, wins. Not only Republicans who lose the electoral vote but win the popular vote. You flip a mere 200k votes in the Rust Belt and Kamala would be walking from the Eisenhower Building to the White House in a couple months despite a popular shutout. It’s a stupid system for a national executive head of state when you’ve already got en entire house of your bicameral legislature that already weights for states versus people. States and regions can vary, so I’m not against accounting for that in a political system, but you already do. I’m against first past the post over here and long have been. I still have the vox pop from when 18 year old me got asked on TV. Labour getting a gigantic landslide despite not actually improving their vote that much doesn’t really change my calculus. | ||
micronesia
United States24813 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46710 Posts
On November 10 2024 01:30 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not making an argument for them to vote for Republicans, just demonstrating to you that the "moving slightly in your ideal direction" thing isn't something tens of millions of voters actually experienced. Which gets us back to Zambrah's point about you being desperately out of touch. It pairs nicely with your total vindication of Harris for not so much as mentioning how she was voting on ending slavery in California, let alone rallying her supporters to the cause. It's with those factors in mind and Trump's open plans for attempting the mass deportation of millions of people I mention the foreseeable terror. You/libs/Dems will just as easily write off Democrats/their supporters complicity in immigrants internment in concentration camps as you have the genocide, slavery, and the rest as some variation of "unfortunate, but pragmatically necessary." Okay, so, "out of touch" = focusing on the economy (one of the most important topics, according to voters), which includes cheaper food and medicine, better-paying and stable jobs, and making sure that housing and childcare and other everyday expenses are more affordable for working and middle-class families. And being "in touch" = getting blamed for what Republicans do, and something about slaves/prisons. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On November 10 2024 01:38 oBlade wrote: The sides are blessed with the same free will to appeal to whoever the fuck they want to win the electoral college. State voting power is not the same as it's rigged for one side. The words "Democratic Party" and "Republican Party" appear 0 times in the Constitution. It’s also a system obviously built around an assumption you wouldn’t have a nation of basically 2 national, viable parties. I think it’s actually a pretty bloody good system if you had a mix of diffuse parties, some national, some more localised etc etc. Most of its strengths become weaknesses in a partisan, binary world | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24511 Posts
On November 10 2024 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Okay, so, "out of touch" = focusing on the economy (one of the most important topics, according to voters), which includes cheaper food and medicine, better-paying and stable jobs, and making sure that housing and childcare and other everyday expenses are more affordable for working and middle-class families. And being "in touch" = getting blamed for what Republicans do, and something about slaves/prisons. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. No. "out of touch" = insisting that people just don't recognize how awesome Democrats, "the economy", etc. are "in touch" = recognizing people have valid reasons to see the Democrats as uninspiring, like their support of genocide and slavery (among 1000+ other reasons). Something like 190,000,000 people didn't vote for Harris. Maybe it's time to realize that Democrats are the reason they aren't getting enough of the ~110,000,000 potential votes that weren't for Trump to win. I have no faith in electoralism, but as you/others do, it's pretty obvious Democrats need to be focusing harder on the ~110,000,000 potential voters that didn't vote for Trump over the "swing voters" that did. They need to start doing that today. They'll never do it with supporters like you though, because those supporters won't ever apply the necessary pressure out of deference to perpetual (oblivious) "pragmatism". | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5093 Posts
Really quick, this election the electoral collage mismatch with the popular vote is going to be about zero, in the sense that Trump won the tipping point state (PA) by about the same margin he's going to win the popular vote. In fact, given his impressive performance in states he lost, there's actually a chance the advantage flips to dems in the future (assuming the realignment continues). this is super obvious in the House where the GOP is going to underperform their popular vote margin (although Dem gerrymandering after 2020 has something to do with this too). Another way to say this is thst this year *dems* had a slight map advantage... so many longtime narratives getting blown up (it happened in 2022 but few noticed). Guys, Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was not "Republican outreach." Harris called her a "Republican thought leader" but she was kicked out of her own party! Dems don't like the Cheney family, but Republicans don't like them either! Thr leason from this is not that "outreach" failed, that's the exact wrong way around. Moreover it doesn't answer the question of how Dems lost ground with people they usually do well with! Maybe they are doing something to alienate a substantial chuck of their own voters? Campaigning with Cheney I contend was a net negative. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On November 10 2024 02:02 GreenHorizons wrote: No. "out of touch" = insisting that people just don't recognize how awesome Democrats, "the economy", etc. are "in touch" = recognizing people have valid reasons to see the Democrats as uninspiring, like their support of genocide and slavery (among 1000+ other reasons). Something like 190,000,000 people didn't vote for Harris. Maybe it's time to realize that Democrats are the reason they aren't getting enough of the ~110,000,000 potential votes that weren't for Trump to win. I have no faith in electoralism, but as you/others do, it's pretty obvious Democrats need to be focusing harder on the ~110,000,000 potential voters that didn't vote for Trump over the "swing voters" that did. They need to start doing that today. They'll never do it with supporters like you though, because those supporters won't ever apply the necessary pressure out of deference to perpetual (oblivious) "pragmatism". I don’t know why this is hard to understand. It’s like Democrats are living the Principle Skinner meme. “Am I out of touch? No, it’s all the people who don’t vote for me who are out of touch!” Trying to swing Republicans (who else are you trying to swing by parading around with Dick Cheney?) is just the dumbest strategy and they keep doing it, it keeps not being good, and they keep defending it. That’s who their “moderates” and “swing voters” are, Republicans. They can keep pretending there’s a vast well of people who will totally vote for Republican-liteness if they slide just a little more towards Republicans, but I will mock anyone who thinks it’s the right thing to do relentlessly because it’s the kind of delusion that can only be compared to a hardcore Trumper at this point. Moderates and swing voters do not and will not win you elections, appealing to them is at the expense of people who will win you elections. Also people have to feel their change, they can’t simply read about it, and they have to actually trust people in power will make an effort to enact change they will feel. Democrats just fail at these things and have eroded a lot of trust which is why their voters are so damn prone to demotivation. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On November 10 2024 03:12 Introvert wrote: Whoa you guys have been busy. Really quick, this election the electoral collage mismatch with the popular vote is going to be about zero, in the sense that Trump won the tipping point state (PA) by about the same margin he's going to win the popular vote. In fact, given his impressive performance in states he lost, there's actually a chance the advantage flips to dems in the future (assuming the realignment continues). this is super obvious in the House where the GOP is going to underperform their popular vote margin (although Dem gerrymandering after 2020 has something to do with this too). Guys, Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was not "Republican outreach." Harris called her a "Republican thought leader" but she was kicked out of her own party! Dems don't like the Cheney family, but Republicans don't like them either! Thr leason from this is not that "outreach" failed, that's the exact wrong way around. Moreover it doesn't answer the question of how Dems lost ground with people they usually do well with! Maybe they are doing something to alienate a substantial chuck of their own voters? Campaigning with Cheney I contend was a net negative. This is a good point as per well, getting shit done in Congress, well de-facto exiles from their party aren’t going to really help there. I don’t think it was the intended messaging mind, I think it was meant to doubly pull on the ‘never Trumper’ types, and also to send a message akin to ‘look, if Republicans weren’t currently insane we could work with them’. I don’t think it worked, at all. I’m not sure that even purely conceptually it was a good idea. I think there’s a world where you just nod, say ‘ah they endorsed me, that shows something’ and basically leave it at that, you don’t have to push it to more prominence | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
What about this is hard to understand? "Climate change would be worse if we hadn't acted." Do you understand this sentence? It doesn't mean "there's no more climate change". It means exactly what it says. You’re right, I’m sorry. Climate change has been probably ever so slightly marginally a little kind of less horrible than it’s maximum potential, so much so that it’s still in horribly escalating crisis status. A thrilling accomplishment, truly something to write home about, I’m motivated just thinking about it, if Democrats can make a catastrophe .05% less bad then what can’t they do lol I don’t think it worked, at all. I’m not sure that even purely conceptually it was a good idea. It didn’t, and it wasn’t lol, but it’s their only strategy and it’s not gonna change because people keep defending the Courting Republicans strategy | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On November 10 2024 03:55 Zambrah wrote: You’re right, I’m sorry. Climate change has been probably ever so slightly marginally a little kind of less horrible than it’s maximum potential, so much so that it’s still in horribly escalating crisis status. A thrilling accomplishment, truly something to write home about, I’m motivated just thinking about it, if Democrats can make a catastrophe .05% less bad then what can’t they do lol It didn’t, and it wasn’t lol, but it’s their only strategy and it’s not gonna change because people keep defending the Courting Republicans strategy I would certainly agree that we've accomplished far too little. Though I think a big part of that needs to be attributed to people such as Trump, who's responsible for withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement. Biden had four years to repair that damage, and now Trump is pulling out for the second time. I can't blame Dems for this - even though I also think they should've tried harder. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28928 Posts
On November 10 2024 03:12 Introvert wrote: Whoa you guys have been busy. Really quick, this election the electoral collage mismatch with the popular vote is going to be about zero, in the sense that Trump won the tipping point state (PA) by about the same margin he's going to win the popular vote. In fact, given his impressive performance in states he lost, there's actually a chance the advantage flips to dems in the future (assuming the realignment continues). this is super obvious in the House where the GOP is going to underperform their popular vote margin (although Dem gerrymandering after 2020 has something to do with this too). Another way to say this is thst this year *dems* had a slight map advantage... so many longtime narratives getting blown up (it happened in 2022 but few noticed). And this isn't why people think the EC is stupid. I'd think it was stupid even if it was stacked in favor of democrats. As far as I'm concerned it's just a badly designed system with 0 apparent advantages and many disadvantages. Senate is fine. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12086 Posts
On November 10 2024 01:27 oBlade wrote: Lol EC abolitionists still abounding. The system is fair because any candidate who were to win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote, wins. Not only Republicans who lose the electoral vote but win the popular vote. You flip a mere 200k votes in the Rust Belt and Kamala would be walking from the Eisenhower Building to the White House in a couple months despite a popular shutout. What do you think about the democracy in Ankh-Morpork? They also have a very fair system. One citizen, one vote. Lord Havelock Vetinari is the citizen. He has the vote. And any candidate can win, as long as they get the majority of the vote. Very fair. All candidates have the same free will to appeal to the voter. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On November 10 2024 03:12 Introvert wrote: Guys, Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was not "Republican outreach." Harris called her a "Republican thought leader" but she was kicked out of her own party! Dems don't like the Cheney family, but Republicans don't like them either! Thr leason from this is not that "outreach" failed, that's the exact wrong way around. Moreover it doesn't answer the question of how Dems lost ground with people they usually do well with! Maybe they are doing something to alienate a substantial chuck of their own voters? Campaigning with Cheney I contend was a net negative. I think they were hoping there was still a substantial number of constitutional conservatives left in the Republican party instead of Trump loyalists. They were wrong. It's depressing watching people like Shapiro, who I once thought had interesting things to say, tie himself into knots trying to support Trump with 'he's bad, but he's incompetent so it doesn't matter and I want the federal government incompetent anyways so that's good." Shapiro, Walsh, heck, even chalkboard-Glenn Beck all saw what a danger Trump posed to their party and wrote articles loudly proclaiming they would never vote for Trump. Every one of them bent the knee and defend and sanewash him to this day. It's sadly funny in the wake of Jan 6, you briefly saw Shapiro think he could separate himself as Trump looked like he was gone from politics. Shapiro flatly called Jan 6 an insurrection and the worst day in American history since 9/11... he has since walked it back once it was clear Trump would return to politics. It's Trump before everything else and so it turned out it did not matter how many former Cabinet members (that Trump himself selected) that came out against him saying he should never lead the country again. Lifelong Republicans, every one of them were secretly Democrats the whole time, the so-called "Uni-party". Trump above all. Stop the steal! They are going to take away your country! (Only not this time???) It's maddening, but so yes, in retrospect there was no point. Trump loyalism has subsumed too much. Having said that, Dick Cheney was never going to help and ought to have been fended off with a very long pole. Something like that "we are grateful for every vote, but we still remember the Iraq war". Or else a more forceful condemnation of the Cheney era of Middle East adventurism. Dick Cheney will always be an anchor to any side he attaches himself. To a lesser degree, so is W Bush. Even if he was supportive of Harris to get rid of Trump "Well, that was some weird s--", I think he was wise to stick with his policy of peacing out of the whole political world and just paint. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46710 Posts
On November 10 2024 02:02 GreenHorizons wrote: No. "out of touch" = insisting that people just don't recognize how awesome Democrats, "the economy", etc. are "in touch" = recognizing people have valid reasons to see the Democrats as uninspiring, like their support of genocide and slavery (among 1000+ other reasons). Something like 190,000,000 people didn't vote for Harris. Maybe it's time to realize that Democrats are the reason they aren't getting enough of the ~110,000,000 potential votes that weren't for Trump to win. I have no faith in electoralism, but as you/others do, it's pretty obvious Democrats need to be focusing harder on the ~110,000,000 potential voters that didn't vote for Trump over the "swing voters" that did. They need to start doing that today. They'll never do it with supporters like you though, because those supporters won't ever apply the necessary pressure out of deference to perpetual (oblivious) "pragmatism". I've repeatedly blamed Democrats. My particular interest with Harris was whether it's primarily Harris's policies that were the issue, or mostly the messaging, communication, optics, and whether or not she's convincing. It appears to be mostly the latter, given how there seem to be far more concerns with her tone, her preference to try to appeal to moderates and swing voters, and how she didn't give great policy pitches, as opposed to her economic plans being inherently bad. I've noticed you haven't actually said that increasing the minimum wage, lowering prices of groceries and medicine, and making housing and childcare more affordable are inherently losing economic issues. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22705 Posts
On November 10 2024 05:18 Liquid`Drone wrote: The EC made more sense when traveling from Oregon to DC took 2 months so you send a small group of delegates to act on the states behalf and the concept of political parties did not even exist.And this isn't why people think the EC is stupid. I'd think it was stupid even if it was stacked in favor of democrats. As far as I'm concerned it's just a badly designed system with 0 apparent advantages and many disadvantages. Senate is fine. Its just that like so much of the US it was never adapted to modern times. | ||
| ||
