|
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 States41470 Posts
On February 07 2019 02:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 07 2019 02:10 Plansix wrote:
Just don't bring it up and let Trump harp on it endlessly. The best thing Warren could do is go nose down, hammer the issues and let Trump rail on about something she did in 1977 and when she got a job at Harvard. If a reporter asks the question, she should just ask if they are asking because Trump keeps bringing it up or because there is something new. This would be the appropriate response if she didn't mic drop her DNA test. She modernized it by making an enormous deal out of her DNA test. I'm just going to say she should just what I said. She already talked about it and said what she had to say. Her story has always been "I believed my parents". It either sinks her in the primary or it doesn't. Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 02:18 travis wrote:
I think it's pretty simple, if the Dems put forward a 100% party line candidate again, Trump will probably win, for the same reasons as last time. But, if they put forward someone like Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, they will steal a lot of Trump's voters and win(just like Sanders would have last time had they not rigged everything) It is less about "Trump voters" and more about turn out. Clinton, so no one's surprise, did not turn out the vote. Get someone who can and they will have something. And positive approval ratings are pretty awesome and they should really focus on that first and foremost.
This is your daily reminder that Clinton got more voters to vote than Trump.
|
On February 07 2019 09:56 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 07:59 Gorsameth wrote:
The President, by virtue of being 1 person from 1 party will never represent 'all'.
That is what Congress is for. The fact that there are only two real parties, let alone parties at all, is the biggest fucking problem we have. Even bigger than the EC. Gerrymandering wouldn't be a thing. The vitriol and divisiveness we have now would be at worst greatly lessened. Compromise would be a necessity. Washington might actually work by virtue of people being able to (and required to) lean toward the middle on things. In Federalist paper 10, Madison railed against "the violence of faction" and warned that "the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties". In number 9, Hamilton, called "domestic faction" the "cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government". This problem is the bedrock on which the other issues are built.
Don't worship your founders, the argument should be "factions are bad because of x", not "Madison said factions are bad".
And as far as i remember, a big part of the arguments in the federalist papers were about having systemical solutions to that kind of problem. Just saying "factions are bad" doesn't solve anything. If you dislike factions or parties, find a system that actively rewards people for not forming parties, and in which other people have incentives to keep you from forming parties. I personally have a hard time imagining a democratic system which does not greatly reward forming parties.
Your current system leads directly to a conflict between two parties due to its base rules. That is just what FPTP winner takes all does. If you want more than two parties, you need to change that system. If you want no parties at all, you need to be a genius and come up with some sort of system that does not reward parties. And then change the system to that. Just saying "This system would be better without parties" does not help, as the system itself pushes parties to succeed over non-partied people.
|
On February 07 2019 09:53 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 09:40 micronesia wrote:
Switching to a popular vote for president doesn't change the fact that low population density states get the same representation in the senate as large states like California. I don't see a problem with those states having less influence over the executive branch. If they want more power they will need to attract more people. You don't see a problem with the super majority of senators coming from states that are irrelevant to the presidential campaign? States can't change basic geographical conditions of the country. Why do you think that they would be irrelevant? Their votes would be worth exactly as much as those of people everywhere else. Why would candidates ignore all those votes? If anything, there is currently a larger incentive to ignore some voters, because their votes are literally worthless. Like those of republicans in California, or democrats in Texas.
They would be irrelevant because their votes wouldn't be as efficient to get as urban voters. The EC makes it so that the states themselves matter instead of the MSA's mattering.
|
The electoral college and winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes have become inseparable in people's mind, for better or worse. The latter is far more disgusting than the former in my opinion and has virtually no justification that I can imagine.
Urban-rural has nothing whatsoever to do with either, too, but somehow gets tied up in it because people can't imagine having a proportional EC distribution system that still preserves +2 votes per state senator for...some reason, so that appealing to Republicans in California or Democrats in Alabama would actually boost your chances of becoming president instead of literally adding nothing.
Can't imagine having fractional votes per state, either, that would just be too confusing.
By preserving winner-take-all, all you do is make rural voters in blue states and urban voters in red states pointless. Great job!
Edit: I mean, all the EC itself does (+2 votes per senator) is advantage low population states. The idea that low population states are inherently rural is...odd. Some (most) of them are, some of them aren't. And there's no guarantee they stay that way, either...at which point we would revoke this? Or something?
|
United States24470 Posts
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.
|
On February 07 2019 10:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 09:53 Simberto wrote:On February 07 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 09:40 micronesia wrote:
Switching to a popular vote for president doesn't change the fact that low population density states get the same representation in the senate as large states like California. I don't see a problem with those states having less influence over the executive branch. If they want more power they will need to attract more people. You don't see a problem with the super majority of senators coming from states that are irrelevant to the presidential campaign? States can't change basic geographical conditions of the country. Why do you think that they would be irrelevant? Their votes would be worth exactly as much as those of people everywhere else. Why would candidates ignore all those votes? If anything, there is currently a larger incentive to ignore some voters, because their votes are literally worthless. Like those of republicans in California, or democrats in Texas. They would be irrelevant because their votes wouldn't be as efficient to get as urban voters. The EC makes it so that the states themselves matter instead of the MSA's mattering.
This mathematically makes no sense.
If both contestants ignore the rural voters and only campaign towards cities, a winning move would be to put in some miniscule amount of effort towards the rural voters. At which point the opponent should also put in some effort towards rurals. This continues until the effort of gaining another rural voter is equal to that of gaining another urban voter. Of course, you can't go to every single small hamlet. You can, however, go to one representative hamlet and make the voters from all of the hamlets feel represented through that. And also, in my opinion your policies should be far more important than whether you personally were at some place or not.
You put to much emphasis on land. The people should matter. It should not matter how much land a single person takes up to determine how much they are represented.
Also, what does MSA stand for?
|
Metropolitan Statistical Areas. He referenced that term in a previous post.
Also, I'm really finding his argument that proposed solutions have problems therefore we shouldn't change anything about the current system despite the very clear problems it has to be an extremely disingenuous argument.
|
On February 07 2019 08:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. The argument always seems to be "Some people deserve to have more of a say in things than others". Usually, "Rural people need to be balanced with urban people". There is never an explanation as to why the vote of a rural person should be more valuable than the vote of an urban person, it just seems to be taken as an axiom that that is how things should be because that is how they currently are. But you could make the exact same logical arguments by dividing the population arbitrarily into any two groups, and saying that they both need to have equal power. Why does "rural people need to have equal power to urban people" make sense, and "people from chicago need to have equal power to people who are not from chicago" is absurd? Votes should be equal. In the US system, they are not. But because you need consensus to change that system, and one party always profits from the inequality of the votes, because their voters are worth more, it is impossible to change this. That does not mean that it is good that it works like that. It just means that it is bad and hard to change. Also, this does not only impact the presidency. Senate is similarly effected, where each vote in a state with low population is worth far more than each vote in a state with high population. Only the house is not as effected, but still has the problems that a FPTP winner takes it all system brings with it.
No explanation? Are you oblivious to the copious amounts of works that espouse Republican virtues? On the flip side I could ask you why you think that Democracy is assumed better. The US was never intended for each branch to be popularly elected as that was the purpose of the House. The senate was supposed to be the voice of the States, but the 17th fucked that up and the Presidency is supposed to be the voice of the country. Why the need to make all the branches the same? You make the system weaker and more vulnerable imho.
PS i think the people arguing for the EC being proportional havent really thought this through. Most people making this argument are Democrats in which Democrats tend to win much fewer states, but reward higher points. You really want 40% of California, New York, Mass, etc. to go red while you pick up 1-2 here or there in the middle part of the country? I actually think proportional EC would favor even more than the current EC.
|
On February 07 2019 11:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 08:46 Simberto wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. The argument always seems to be "Some people deserve to have more of a say in things than others". Usually, "Rural people need to be balanced with urban people". There is never an explanation as to why the vote of a rural person should be more valuable than the vote of an urban person, it just seems to be taken as an axiom that that is how things should be because that is how they currently are. But you could make the exact same logical arguments by dividing the population arbitrarily into any two groups, and saying that they both need to have equal power. Why does "rural people need to have equal power to urban people" make sense, and "people from chicago need to have equal power to people who are not from chicago" is absurd? Votes should be equal. In the US system, they are not. But because you need consensus to change that system, and one party always profits from the inequality of the votes, because their voters are worth more, it is impossible to change this. That does not mean that it is good that it works like that. It just means that it is bad and hard to change. Also, this does not only impact the presidency. Senate is similarly effected, where each vote in a state with low population is worth far more than each vote in a state with high population. Only the house is not as effected, but still has the problems that a FPTP winner takes it all system brings with it. No explanation? Are you oblivious to the copious amounts of works that espouse Republican virtues? On the flip side I could ask you why you think that Democracy is assumed better. The US was never intended for each branch to be popularly elected as that was the purpose of the House. The senate was supposed to be the voice of the States, but the 17th fucked that up and the Presidency is supposed to be the voice of the country. Why the need to make all the branches the same? You make the system weaker and more vulnerable imho.
I mean, Republican virtues advocate for reforming the electoral college even more, there's little to nothing Republican about it. In that philosophy we probably have actual electors from each district that vote based on what they believe is best for their district and two more doing so at the state level, not force the elector representing the 2nd Nevada congressional district to vote however the rest of the state votes. A.K.A. extremely far from state level first past the post.
|
On February 07 2019 09:43 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 09:38 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 09:19 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. The low key push by the Democrats to end the filibuster is something that could really shake up the dynamic in the Senate. The EC is another problem. But I think making election day a national holiday would do more for the state of Washington than making a big push to change the EC. On February 07 2019 09:18 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. One can propose said changes but they have to at the same time take into account what those changes would fundamentally do to the nation. Why should the states between the mountains stay in the country that they now have no political relevance in? When California wants to build a pipeline from the great lakes to the golden coast whats to stop them? Replacing one group who feels like they're unequally represented with another group who is unequally represented isn't a valid argument. Considering the current state of government and how last couple Republican presidents won, it is something that needs to be looked into. Especially given the quality of the Republican candidates and their long term impacts on this country. Lets not forget that Bush also lost the popular vote vs Gore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_electionFor the sake of the Republic, we cannot have a majority population that consistently feels like they are being deprived representation in one third of the government. That is a recipe for conflict, which you are starting to see in this country. That doesn't mean getting rid of the EC. But elections and how they are run might have to change. Your dig about the "quality" of candidates aside we don't disagree on the issue that there are problems. What my argument is against the clamor to get rid of the EC. I fail to see a system proposed that doesn't wholesale get rid of the EC. Making the majority of the nation terrain wise irrelevant is a much larger recipe for conflict. Making the coasts the only reasonable place to campaign for president would do that. Tell me a system that doesn't do that. I don't get this idea that the coast would be the only place to campaign. Taxas has 30 million people Tennessee has 7 million, Indiana 6.7, Missouri 6. The idea that people are just going to skip states with 7 million people is crazy. Over half the states have 4.5 million + people living there. Those people are going to be courted.
The argument that campaigns would only stay in a couple states lacks the acknowledgement that currently candidates don't visit all states equally. They primarily focus on swing states which is only a handful of states.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016
Two-thirds (273 of 399) of the general-election campaign events in the 2016 presidential race were in just 6 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan).
94% of the 2016 events (375 of the 399) were in 12 states (the 11 states identified in early 2016 as "battleground" states by Politico and The Hill plus Arizona). This fact validates the statement by former presidential candidate and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin on September 2, 2015, that “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president. Twelve states are.”
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/A31bI41.jpg)
It also not like removing the EC removes the disproportionate representation that smaller states have. Larger population states get less representation per citizen in the house and they obviously don't get proportional representation in the senate.
|
On February 07 2019 11:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 11:03 Wegandi wrote:On February 07 2019 08:46 Simberto wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. The argument always seems to be "Some people deserve to have more of a say in things than others". Usually, "Rural people need to be balanced with urban people". There is never an explanation as to why the vote of a rural person should be more valuable than the vote of an urban person, it just seems to be taken as an axiom that that is how things should be because that is how they currently are. But you could make the exact same logical arguments by dividing the population arbitrarily into any two groups, and saying that they both need to have equal power. Why does "rural people need to have equal power to urban people" make sense, and "people from chicago need to have equal power to people who are not from chicago" is absurd? Votes should be equal. In the US system, they are not. But because you need consensus to change that system, and one party always profits from the inequality of the votes, because their voters are worth more, it is impossible to change this. That does not mean that it is good that it works like that. It just means that it is bad and hard to change. Also, this does not only impact the presidency. Senate is similarly effected, where each vote in a state with low population is worth far more than each vote in a state with high population. Only the house is not as effected, but still has the problems that a FPTP winner takes it all system brings with it. No explanation? Are you oblivious to the copious amounts of works that espouse Republican virtues? On the flip side I could ask you why you think that Democracy is assumed better. The US was never intended for each branch to be popularly elected as that was the purpose of the House. The senate was supposed to be the voice of the States, but the 17th fucked that up and the Presidency is supposed to be the voice of the country. Why the need to make all the branches the same? You make the system weaker and more vulnerable imho. I mean, Republican virtues advocate for reforming the electoral college even more, there's little to nothing Republican about it. In that philosophy we probably have actual electors from each district that vote based on what they believe is best for their district and two more doing so at the state level, not force the elector representing the 2nd Nevada congressional district to vote however the rest of the state votes. A.K.A. extremely far from state level first past the post.
EC voters are not required to abide by their states vote. They can vote for whoever they want (some states excepted). Did you think they were required to vote the same as their state did?
|
United States24470 Posts
On February 07 2019 11:03 Wegandi wrote:
PS i think the people arguing for the EC being proportional havent really thought this through. Most people making this argument are Democrats in which Democrats tend to win much fewer states, but reward higher points. You really want 40% of California, New York, Mass, etc. to go red while you pick up 1-2 here or there in the middle part of the country? I actually think proportional EC would favor even more than the current EC.
I expect a proportional electoral college would much more closely line up with the popular vote. Therefore, in the most recent presidential election as an example, Hillary would have picked up more votes from smaller states that she lost, than she would have lost from big blue state red votes suddenly counting towards the result. The differences between the proportional electoral college result and a popular vote would mostly be due to the rounding needed to map a large number of votes to a small number of representatives, and misalignment between the population of a state and the number of votes that state gets. These effects would be pretty trivial.
|
On February 07 2019 11:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 11:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 07 2019 11:03 Wegandi wrote:On February 07 2019 08:46 Simberto wrote:On February 07 2019 08:26 farvacola wrote:
One needn’t be ignorant of US political structures in order to propose that the electoral college and/or the Senate need revisiting in terms of how they allocate electoral power. The argument always seems to be "Some people deserve to have more of a say in things than others". Usually, "Rural people need to be balanced with urban people". There is never an explanation as to why the vote of a rural person should be more valuable than the vote of an urban person, it just seems to be taken as an axiom that that is how things should be because that is how they currently are. But you could make the exact same logical arguments by dividing the population arbitrarily into any two groups, and saying that they both need to have equal power. Why does "rural people need to have equal power to urban people" make sense, and "people from chicago need to have equal power to people who are not from chicago" is absurd? Votes should be equal. In the US system, they are not. But because you need consensus to change that system, and one party always profits from the inequality of the votes, because their voters are worth more, it is impossible to change this. That does not mean that it is good that it works like that. It just means that it is bad and hard to change. Also, this does not only impact the presidency. Senate is similarly effected, where each vote in a state with low population is worth far more than each vote in a state with high population. Only the house is not as effected, but still has the problems that a FPTP winner takes it all system brings with it. No explanation? Are you oblivious to the copious amounts of works that espouse Republican virtues? On the flip side I could ask you why you think that Democracy is assumed better. The US was never intended for each branch to be popularly elected as that was the purpose of the House. The senate was supposed to be the voice of the States, but the 17th fucked that up and the Presidency is supposed to be the voice of the country. Why the need to make all the branches the same? You make the system weaker and more vulnerable imho. I mean, Republican virtues advocate for reforming the electoral college even more, there's little to nothing Republican about it. In that philosophy we probably have actual electors from each district that vote based on what they believe is best for their district and two more doing so at the state level, not force the elector representing the 2nd Nevada congressional district to vote however the rest of the state votes. A.K.A. extremely far from state level first past the post. EC voters are not required to abide by their states vote. They can vote for whoever they want (some states excepted). Did you think they were required to vote the same as their state did?
I mean, 29 states punish faithless electors and 21 states don't. So it's not 'some' it's the majority. In either case, do you think they're voting that way because it's best for those that elected them? Or so they don't get pilloried in the public square and cast out of politics for violating norms?
PS i think the people arguing for the EC being proportional havent really thought this through. Most people making this argument are Democrats in which Democrats tend to win much fewer states, but reward higher points. You really want 40% of California, New York, Mass, etc. to go red while you pick up 1-2 here or there in the middle part of the country? I actually think proportional EC would favor even more than the current EC.
It's almost like they care more about what they see as a good system than one that privileges them...crazy how there can be people out there like that.
(also, campaigning and voter turnout in a fractional proportional world would be so radically different I'm not sure how anyone could expect to bet at what the shakedown would look like)
|
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.
|
On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Why have a rally in a red or blue state when you can have one in a purple state? Do you think the current system encourages rallies in rural areas? Or do you think it encourages Republican rallies in rural areas in purple states and Democratic rallies in urban areas in purple states?
Trump had 23 rallies in Florida in 2016. In 2010 91.2% of Florida's population lived in urban areas, second only to New Jersey. Do you think Florida is a rural state?
|
United States24470 Posts
On February 07 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 07 2019 11:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +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. Why have a rally in a red or blue state when you can have one in a purple state? Do you think the current system encourages rallies in rural areas? Or do you think it encourages Republican rallies in rural areas in purple states and Democratic rallies in urban areas in purple states? Trump had 23 rallies in Florida in 2016. In 2010 91.2% of Florida's population lived in urban areas, second only to New Jersey. Do you think Florida is a rural state?
My statement on the current EC was that it punished the more partisan states and rewarded the less partisan. That the changes to the EC would create issues in the rual-urban divide.
|
On February 07 2019 11:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 07 2019 11:49 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 11:43 TheTenthDoc 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. Why have a rally in a red or blue state when you can have one in a purple state? Do you think the current system encourages rallies in rural areas? Or do you think it encourages Republican rallies in rural areas in purple states and Democratic rallies in urban areas in purple states? Trump had 23 rallies in Florida in 2016. In 2010 91.2% of Florida's population lived in urban areas, second only to New Jersey. Do you think Florida is a rural state? My statement on the current EC was that it punished the more partisan states and rewarded the less partisan. That the changes to the EC would create issues in the rual-urban divide.
I guess I just see punishing the partisan states as also creating a a rural/urban vs mixed divide, and I'm not sure that's preferable. In that more partisan states are more likely to be urban or rural with most purple states falling squarely in the middle of urbanity (bar Florida). And the sheer number of rural AND urban votes that don't matter...gets to me, to the point where that seems worse to me than any rural/urban split from percentage allocation.
But I understand your point a lot better now, sorry for being aggressive.
|
On February 07 2019 11:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 11:49 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 11:43 TheTenthDoc 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. Why have a rally in a red or blue state when you can have one in a purple state? Do you think the current system encourages rallies in rural areas? Or do you think it encourages Republican rallies in rural areas in purple states and Democratic rallies in urban areas in purple states? Trump had 23 rallies in Florida in 2016. In 2010 91.2% of Florida's population lived in urban areas, second only to New Jersey. Do you think Florida is a rural state? My statement on the current EC was that it punished the more partisan states and rewarded the less partisan. That the changes to the EC would create issues in the rual-urban divide. I guess I just see punishing the partisan states as also creating a a rural/urban vs mixed divide, and I'm not sure that's preferable. In that more partisan states are more likely to be urban or rural with most purple states falling squarely in the middle of urbanity (bar Florida). But I understand your point a lot better now, sorry for being aggressive.
Its ok I come from minnesota and its not looking good for us in the next election if Klobuchar isn't involved in the democratic ticket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
