I'm coming around to strongly supporting the Electoral Collegelec

[elfenix 34171]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

In truth the issue it that there are several different arguments for what's wrong with the Electoral College. He appears to be taking the "swing states deciding everything is bad" approach, which is fine. It's just difficult to argue against 8 positions at once on a message board.

it's probably easier when you're not arguing against yourself.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

 

such a straw man it's just the very first part of the first paragraph of the OP.  and i'm not the one that posted this image.

 

 

of course it's perception. it's beaten into you from elementary school along with a bunch of other nonsense.

[Huckleberry 32701]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

such a straw man it's just the very first part of the first paragraph of the OP.  and i'm not the one that posted this image.

 

I was posting how the new system would be bad for rural areas, not how the current system is good for them. That was pretty clear.

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

it's probably easier when you're not arguing against yourself.

That might hurt if your reading comprehension weren't so abysmal.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Huckleberry

[tantric superman 4667]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

such a straw man it's just the very first part of the first paragraph of the OP.  and i'm not the one that posted this image.

 

It's too bad you stopped there and didn't read the second numbered paragraph of the OP.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

23 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Sure they would, there just wouldn't be a need to campaign to them like their would in states with larger population centers.

As to wildcat's observation that you don't have to personally visit, that's true.

But look at Beto's Senate campaign.  It was built entirely on how he was willing to personally go to your location.  As in all things, it's perception.  There is simply no way to get around the perception that this is a "fuck you small communities" message. 

I absolutely like the idea of states electing Presidents, and each state determining their own method for measuring how they vote for those Presidents.  As stated, we could solve the concerns by each of us going to each of our states and asking the electoral college votes to be made in a way that reflects the proportion of our state that went to a candidate, rather than a winner take all.

They don't campaign in small states now.  They campaign in swing states only.  Most of them are midsize.  Some, like FL, PA, and OH are even large.  Small communities and small states aren't the same thing either.  There are more rural people in California than there are in Wyoming.

Even with the popular vote, campaigns are going to focus on getting new voters in places with the most swing voters, and driving out their reliable voters in places where they exist.  That will continue to not be cities in CA, NY, or TX.  It will still be midsize factory towns, dying Midwestern cities, and Florida old folks homes.  And with the GOP's fearmongering message, they'll have to hit small towns nationwide more than they do now, and the Dems will have to do the same to counter that message.

And Beto damages your point.  He campaigned in every single county in Texas rather than focusing on population centers even though he only needed the popular vote to win.  Actually, you could have a popular election amendment that required candidates to campaign in every state if they wanted to stay on the ballot.  There are plenty of fixes that would make it more equitable and allow everyone's voice to be heard equally.

[elfenix 34171]

On 3/24/2019 at 7:20 AM, tantric superman said:

1)Part of the smaller states' willingness to be in the union was based on the fact that their concerns wouldn't be swallowed up by the larger population sites.  Doing away with the EC exacerbates the rural/city divide (which will become less of a cultural divide as technology and demographic changes in and of themselves lessen the cultural divide.)

2)Plans like the Nebraska and Maine plans lessen the winner take all approach of most of the other states without changing the general overlay of the electoral college.  That would be a decent compromise between those who favor a purely democratic approach and those who think the EC fits in better with the state/federal relationship.

3)It won't happen.

4)Both parties are in a far better place actually trying to understand and convince middle america of the wisdom of their policies than focus on issues like this and court modifications which tinker with the balance between the three branches.

Interesting issue.  In the short term, making it an issue in this election hurts the Dems.

Has anyone done the research to be able to list the Dem candidates who are pushing this issue down into the lower priority sections of their platforms?

 

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Why would I go to Wyoming or spend any money there when there are ten times as many registered voters in Harris County? In a popular vote, it's absolutely certain that I can change more votes by campaigning in Houston than all of Wyoming.

To put it another way, there are more registered voters in the orange area than in the purple area:

Why would I spend money traveling around all that purple area?

It's not a democracy, so...

 

38 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I was posting how the new system would be bad for rural areas, not how the current system is good for them. That was pretty clear.

That might hurt if your reading comprehension weren't so abysmal.

 

37 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

It's too bad you stopped there and didn't read the second numbered paragraph of the OP.

 

holy fuck i hate the quote system on this message board.  quoting across pages is abysmal. 

@tantric superman paragraph 2 of your OP doesn't do anything to deny or amend the expressed concern in paragraph 1 for smaller states/communities.  it's just a more palatable step for you than abolishing the EC and going straight popular vote.  it'd more approximate the results of the popular vote, but if we're going that far, why not just use the popular vote?

@huckleberry yeah there's certainly no implication at all in defending the current system by claiming that a change to a popular vote would mean all the people in purple get ignored.

Edited March 27, 2019 by elfenix

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, it is. I mean you can ignore the actual specifics of my post if it makes things easier for you, but it doesn't matter if the States created a compact or if the People signed a contract when the bottom line is what the document says. The document says the POTUS is elected in this manner.

Dropout argued that there is no good reason to depart from one of the most fundamental principles of democratic government (one person = one vote), and I thought you were attempting to provide a substantive rebuttal but it appears that you are simply arguing 'that's the way it is' without addressing the actual question Dropout was putting forth. 

If you were a neo-confederate who subscribed to the idea that the federal government is a product of the states as sovereign entities then you may find good reasons as to why the properties of the states should condition the voting power of each citizen.  However, if you believe the federal government is established directly by the people as a whole and exists independently of and is supreme to the states, then I don't see why the properties of the states themselves should dictate the voting power of each citizen.  

[EMAWesome 101]

On 3/24/2019 at 10:16 AM, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Abolishing the electoral college isn't about getting a D in the White House. 

 

 

  Has anyone besides me noticed how all of a sudden none of the non-socialist Democratic candidates have tossed this idea of abolishing the electoral college around once they were all trailing Sanders in the primary?  All of a sudden five out of six Democrats in the last debate aren't very excited about the concept of the popular vote being used to decide an election.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by EMAWesome

[Guest Lobo]

Anybody else blue in the fucking face from hearing Democrats over, and fucking over again complain about the Electoral College like it's Bush or Trump's fault?  

There wasn't a Republican Party when it was conceived and it's not the Republican Party that keeps it from being amended/repealed/modified.  

We've passed way more controversial amendments in this country, through much darker times, with an even more uneven party alignment in D.C. and the States.  

It's real fucking simple, 2/3rds majority in each chamber of Congress.  And then 3/4ths of the States.  That's it.  Now you can get the Republicans from blue, but heavily populated states in Congress to go along with it.  I don't actually think in the end, the 2/3rds vote is that hard for this to come to pass.  But yeah, the 3/4ths of States is almost insurmountable.  But there have been tomes written about the failure of the Democratic party to focus on state legislatures (governors, yes...courts, yes...state legislatures, no).  Obviously the small states aren't gonna go for it, which is why you have to do that one thing...that thing that's been done almost every other amendment before this.  The one that gets states unlike the others to go along with an amendment or even just a bill.  Compromise.  Offer them something else.  What's 3 or 4 electoral college votes worth?  Figure it out and offer it to them.  

The debate rages on about how the EC would favor cities over states, or it actually is more equitable or less equitable, or 7 states would control everything, or how rural and farm states control everything, etc., etc., etc.  Both sides have valid points.  What nobody discussed is, you don't like it?...amend the fucking thing.  The deals are there to be made in Congress.  The states are the tricky part, so start focusing on those houses.  Start picking up seats by running moderates in red states who'll adhere to the values of those states and pick up 1-2 states (by legislative body) each election cycle.  Be methodical and long-visioned.  Just throwing your arms up every four years about how unfair it is is fucking exhausting.  

[bolverk 29399]

36 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

  Has anyone besides me noticed how all of a sudden none of the non-socialist Democratic candidates have tossed this idea of abolishing the electoral college around once they were all trailing Sanders in the primary?  All of a sudden five out of six Democrats in the last debate aren't very excited about the concept of the popular vote being used to decide an election.

 

 

 

 

"Most votes"

Are you talking majority or plurality? Is there a runoff? How many rounds of voting at the convention?

You do realize that's what happens, correct? If a majority isn't initially achieved, they keep voting until one is.

I don't know why I'm wasting my breath other than to demonstrate what a disingenuous dumbass you are.

[bolverk 29399]

24 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Anybody else blue in the fucking face from hearing Democrats over, and fucking over again complain about the Electoral College like it's Bush or Trump's fault?  

There wasn't a Republican Party when it was conceived and it's not the Republican Party that keeps it from being amended/repealed/modified.  

We've passed way more controversial amendments in this country, through much darker times, with an even more uneven party alignment in D.C. and the States.  

It's real fucking simple, 2/3rds majority in each chamber of Congress.  And then 3/4ths of the States.  That's it.  Now you can get the Republicans from blue, but heavily populated states in Congress to go along with it.  I don't actually think in the end, the 2/3rds vote is that hard for this to come to pass.  But yeah, the 3/4ths of States is almost insurmountable.  But there have been tomes written about the failure of the Democratic party to focus on state legislatures (governors, yes...courts, yes...state legislatures, no).  Obviously the small states aren't gonna go for it, which is why you have to do that one thing...that thing that's been done almost every other amendment before this.  The one that gets states unlike the others to go along with an amendment or even just a bill.  Compromise.  Offer them something else.  What's 3 or 4 electoral college votes worth?  Figure it out and offer it to them.  

The debate rages on about how the EC would favor cities over states, or it actually is more equitable or less equitable, or 7 states would control everything, or how rural and farm states control everything, etc., etc., etc.  Both sides have valid points.  What nobody discussed is, you don't like it?...amend the fucking thing.  The deals are there to be made in Congress.  The states are the tricky part, so start focusing on those houses.  Start picking up seats by running moderates in red states who'll adhere to the values of those states and pick up 1-2 states (by legislative body) each election cycle.  Be methodical and long-visioned.  Just throwing your arms up every four years about how unfair it is is fucking exhausting.  

How have you not heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which completely avoids the Constitutional amendment problem you're ranting about?

[Hank Kingsley 20698]

47 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

  Has anyone besides me noticed how all of a sudden none of the non-socialist Democratic candidates have tossed this idea of abolishing the electoral college around once they were all trailing Sanders in the primary?  All of a sudden five out of six Democrats in the last debate aren't very excited about the concept of the popular vote being used to decide an election.

 

 

 

 

It’s just you.

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

How have you not heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which completely avoids the Constitutional amendment problem you're ranting about?

I've heard of it.  It's not anywhere close to passing and there are serious legal questions about its validity should it ever come to pass.  We've only passed one of our amendments via convention.  The other 26 have gone through the method I described, or the Constitution and hIstory have described I suppose.  I'm sorry I won't hold my breath for something ratified by 15 states and neither Chamber of Congress.  The '69 attempt was probably the closest we'll see in a long while, it was proposed by Democrats but endorsed by Nixon and several prominent Republicans as well (albeit those folks were from large population states), and opposed by Democrats from rural states (big surprise).  That vote, as well as the grassroots attempts at the state levels to start lining up support in the event it made it out of Congress (and it had Nixon's blessing), were a good (not great) model for how to replace the EC.  

With both houses and both parties of Congress desperate to claw back power from the Executive whenever their guy isn't in the Oval...to think they're gonna bend over and skip their vote because an Interstate Compact between a dozen states and DC?  I don't see that happening for at least a generation.  

[gmr548 16512]

Keep the EC. The next few elections will be dogfights, but oh well. AZ is in the process of flipping and that should be completed by 2024. That takes some of the weight off of WI/MI/PA. The big fish is Texas, which will flip sometime between 2024-2032. The current incarnation of the GOP is dead on arrival at the presidential level after that. They can't get through a west coast/southwestern version of the blue wall even if you concede every other swing state for argument's sake. They'll be forced to undergo a gut rehab and purge themselves into something not completely heinous or  be relegated to permanent opposition status with intermittent periods of toothlessness when they lose congress.

[scottsins 1953]

It’s just you.

I have circumstantial evidence that the electoral college has nothing to do with party nominations.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13412]

On 2/23/2020 at 2:20 PM, gmr548 said:

Keep the EC. The next few elections will be dogfights, but oh well. AZ is in the process of flipping and that should be completed by 2024. That takes some of the weight off of WI/MI/PA. The big fish is Texas, which will flip sometime between 2024-2032. The current incarnation of the GOP is dead on arrival at the presidential level after that. They can't get through a west coast/southwestern version of the blue wall even if you concede every other swing state for argument's sake. They'll be forced to undergo a gut rehab and purge themselves into something not completely heinous or  be relegated to permanent opposition status with intermittent periods of toothlessness when they lose congress.

Yes if Texas and AZ flip blue, it will be difficult for the gop to win the presidency but not impossible.

while not precisely related to the the electoral college, the GOP will own the senate by a wide margin in the future.

[Tuco 5076]

On 2/23/2020 at 1:56 PM, Lobo said:

I've heard of it.  It's not anywhere close to passing and there are serious legal questions about its validity should it ever come to pass.  We've only passed one of our amendments via convention.  The other 26 have gone through the method I described, or the Constitution and hIstory have described I suppose.  I'm sorry I won't hold my breath for something ratified by 15 states and neither Chamber of Congress.  The '69 attempt was probably the closest we'll see in a long while, it was proposed by Democrats but endorsed by Nixon and several prominent Republicans as well (albeit those folks were from large population states), and opposed by Democrats from rural states (big surprise).  That vote, as well as the grassroots attempts at the state levels to start lining up support in the event it made it out of Congress (and it had Nixon's blessing), were a good (not great) model for how to replace the EC.  

With both houses and both parties of Congress desperate to claw back power from the Executive whenever their guy isn't in the Oval...to think they're gonna bend over and skip their vote because an Interstate Compact between a dozen states and DC?  I don't see that happening for at least a generation.  

To me, the best way to address the inequities of the EC is to add to the House headcount, which would dilute the small state two vote bonus.  The 435 limit is a legislative cap, so you don't need a Constitutional Amendment.  The current Rep to constituent ratio is way out of wack with the original ratio, and will get worse as time goes on.  It was 30k constituents to every one Rep in 1789, and now it's ~750k to one. 

Other positives: 

- better access to your Rep

- dilutes the power of money, as it would be more practical for a candidate to knock doors to reach his voters

Negatives:

- would need to build a bigger House.  People hate to lose tradition. 

- would have a bigger budget to pay more Reps and their overhead. It's a tiny drop in the budget, but would still be something people would be resistant to.

- would increase the power of the parties, as a much larger house would make committee positions more valuable.  This is about the only thing that gives me pause. 

NYT Opinion piece

Citation: I first heard about this idea from one of the posters on this board - LL maybe.  

 

[Incredulity 11564]

4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

To me, the best way to address the inequities of the EC is to add to the House headcount, which would dilute the small state two vote bonus.  The 435 limit is a legislative cap, so you don't need a Constitutional Amendment.  The current Rep to constituent ratio is way out of wack with the original ratio, and will get worse as time goes on.  It was 30k constituents to every one Rep in 1789, and now it's ~750k to one. 

Other positives: 

- better access to your Rep

- dilutes the power of money, as it would be more practical for a candidate to knock doors to reach his voters

Negatives:

- would need to build a bigger House.  People hate to lose tradition. 

- would have a bigger budget to pay more Reps and their overhead. It's a tiny drop in the budget, but would still be something people would be resistant to.

- would increase the power of the parties, as a much larger house would make committee positions more valuable.  This is about the only thing that gives me pause. 

NYT Opinion piece

Citation: I first heard about this idea from one of the posters on this board - LL maybe.  

 

This makes WAY to much sense to ever be implemented.

[JBJ 3649]

42 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The current Rep to constituent ratio is way out of wack with the original ratio, and will get worse as time goes on. 

But the original Senate to House vote ratio was about 2:7, so we'd actually have to reduce house districts to 364 to get back to the historical EC ratio.

Districting the EC is probably the best solution, whether that's a fully districted model (colonial VA) or district-plus-state model (Nebraska). Nebraska makes the most intuitive sense and lets house and electoral districts be the same.

I don't think it would actually impact the outcome of most elections, but it would undoubtedly force the national campaigns to be more broad and therefore broaden policy concerns of both parties.

Edited February 25, 2020 by JBJ

[Tuco 5076]

42 minutes ago, JBJ said:

But the original Senate to House vote ratio was about 2:7, so we'd actually have to reduce house districts to 364 to get back to the historical EC ratio.

Districting the EC is probably the best solution, whether that's a fully districted model (colonial VA) or district-plus-state model (Nebraska). Nebraska makes the most intuitive sense and lets house and electoral districts be the same.

I don't think it would actually impact the outcome of most elections, but it would undoubtedly force the national campaigns to be more broad and therefore broaden policy concerns of both parties.

 

I don't understand why the House/Senate split ratio on EVs would be something you would try to maintain.  But, there is evidence that the voter/Rep ratio was intentional, and something they tried to maintain as the population increased.  

The down side of splitting the EC votes: 1) it doesn't address the fact that the small states have a disproportionate amount of power.  Each Wyoming voter still have much more influence on who wins the Presidency than each Texas voter. 2) It would increase the motivation to gerrymander districts. Nebraska went through a redistricting after Obama won NE-2 in 2008, and all districts have been red since. It's only getting back to a competitive ratio now. 3) In practice, it would probably actually increase the power of small states.  While big states like California and Texas would inevitably get a district split that reflects its population, small states would not.  Wyoming is only one district, so it's winner takes all.  Nebraska was able to redraw the lines so that 100% of the EVs go red, with winning 59% of the total votes in 2016. So, while California might go 60% blue 40% red on its EV, the small states wouldn't.  4) It would require a Constitutional Amendment to force all of the states to decide EVs in a manner dictated by the Federal government.  

[Hank Kingsley 20698]

Abolish the electoral college. 

Imagine a Republican nominee actually trying to earn votes from Rs in CA and NY. 

Imagine a Democrat actually trying to earn votes from Ds in the South. 

Imagine just trying to win the most voters throughout the  country, instead of trying to game an EC map and ignoring half the populace. 

The policies would be better. The huge motherfucking gap between the two parties would decrease.

Abolish the electoral college. 

 

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20698]

Not counting W's re-election in 2004, a Republican presidential nominee hasn't won the popular vote since 1988. 

Gee, I wonder why this country is so fucked up and divided. 

 

 

[Tuco 5076]

27 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Abolish the electoral college. 

Imagine a Republican nominee actually trying to earn votes from Rs in CA and NY. 

Imagine a Democrat actually trying to earn votes from Ds in the South. 

Imagine just trying to win the most voters throughout the  country, instead of trying to game an EC map and ignoring half the populace. 

The policies would be better. The huge motherfucking gap between the two parties would decrease.

Abolish the electoral college. 

 

 

 

Imagine if the states had an incentive to increase voting.  

[Hank Kingsley 20698]

I think you could practically blame the Electoral College for the GOP's stance that climate change isn't real and shouldn't be addressed. 

 

 

 

 

 

[JBJ 3649]

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

I don't understand why the House/Senate split ratio on EVs would be something you would try to maintain.  But, there is evidence that the voter/Rep ratio was intentional, and something they tried to maintain as the population increased.  

"Shall not exceed."  Apportionment was never set to 30,000 it just can't be less than that.  There was never any attempt to maintain this. 

The Apportionment ratio had already quadrupled by the Civil War.  But there were 237 house seats to 62 Senate seats after the census of 1850.  That's 2:~7.6 and very close to the original apportionment bill which was close to exactly 2:7.

Edited February 25, 2020 by JBJ

[elfenix 34171]

22 minutes ago, JBJ said:

"Shall not exceed."  Apportionment was never set to 30,000 it just can't be less than that.  There was never any attempt to maintain this. 

The Apportionment ratio had already quadrupled by the Civil War.  But there were 237 house seats to 62 Senate seats after the census of 1850.  That's 2:~7.6 and very close to the original apportionment bill which was close to exactly 2:7.

i don't think there's anything intentional there, more like the number of calories a farmer or acre could produce didn't change significantly between 1787 and 1850. 

[JBJ 3649]

44 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i don't think there's anything intentional there, more like the number of calories a farmer or acre could produce didn't change significantly between 1787 and 1850. 

I agree. The ratio is historical but not intentional.  It's a happy little error /bobross.

The general intent behind each apportionment bill was to grow the chamber as little as possible without losing any existing seats.  That produced the ratio effect as newly annexed / rapidly growing states would tend to pull existing house seats away from the existing states without the House-to-Senate ratio staying approximately the same. 

It's kind of a mistake that we even started with that ratio.The Constitution called for 26 and 65 seats (2:5).  So if there's any actual intended state-to-district ratio it's there.

But I will double down a bit and say that the % growth of the population apportionment was actually higher during the 1800-1860 period than we have with the locked number of seats.

Edited February 25, 2020 by JBJ

[Nice Guy Eddie 13412]

4 hours ago, Tuco said:

To me, the best way to address the inequities of the EC is to add to the House headcount, which would dilute the small state two vote bonus.  The 435 limit is a legislative cap, so you don't need a Constitutional Amendment.  The current Rep to constituent ratio is way out of wack with the original ratio, and will get worse as time goes on.  It was 30k constituents to every one Rep in 1789, and now it's ~750k to one. 

Other positives: 

- better access to your Rep

- dilutes the power of money, as it would be more practical for a candidate to knock doors to reach his voters

Negatives:

- would need to build a bigger House.  People hate to lose tradition. 

- would have a bigger budget to pay more Reps and their overhead. It's a tiny drop in the budget, but would still be something people would be resistant to.

- would increase the power of the parties, as a much larger house would make committee positions more valuable.  This is about the only thing that gives me pause. 

NYT Opinion piece

Citation: I first heard about this idea from one of the posters on this board - LL maybe.  

 

Good ideas listed here. One major obstacle to a larger House are the small state senators rejecting it. Say you add enough reps so that each rep represented ~600K instead of 750K. Wyoming would still have 1 rep like they do now. Both WY senators would most likely vote against that bill since it dilutes the power of their rep. Basically every senator would look at the impact to their voters, and many states would lose out. that ain't passing.

cliff claven fact: the state with the worst representation in Congress based on voter representation?  Montana. Their 1 guy represents 1m. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Nice Guy Eddie

[elfenix 34171]

750K down to 600K isn't a conversation worth having. 

[Tuco 5076]

14 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Good ideas listed here. One major obstacle to a larger House are the small state senators rejecting it. Say you add enough reps so that each rep represented ~600K instead of 750K. Wyoming would still have 1 rep like they do now. Both WY senators would most likely vote against that bill since it dilutes the power of their rep. Basically every senator would look at the impact to their voters, and many states would lose out. that ain't passing.

cliff claven fact: the state with the worst representation in Congress based on voter representation?  Montana. Their 1 guy represents 1m. 

All you need is the majority of the House, the majority (or 60 Senators) and the President to pass it.  The most difficult of those would be the Senate, as the Republican Party would likely oppose it because their strength is derived from the small state advantage. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

17 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Abolish the electoral college. 

Imagine a Republican nominee actually trying to earn votes from Rs in CA and NY. 

Imagine a Democrat actually trying to earn votes from Ds in the South. 

Imagine just trying to win the most voters throughout the  country, instead of trying to game an EC map and ignoring half the populace. 

The policies would be better. The huge motherfucking gap between the two parties would decrease.

Abolish the electoral college. 

 

 

 

The popular vote would still probably mean urban centers would dominate our political systems totally as they would be the only places candidates would  campaign in .  Not what a democratic republic is allegedly supposed to do.

The electoral college isn't outdated,  but it could use a tweaking.

[High Plains Drifter 10976]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The popular vote would still probably mean urban centers would dominate our political systems totally as they would be the only places candidates would  campaign in .  Not what a democratic republic is allegedly supposed to do.

The electoral college isn't outdated,  but it could use a tweaking.

 

Urban centers, you mean those places where most people live? Those are the places that would dominate political systems?

 

As opposed to what we have now, rural areas, where fewer people live, dominating political systems?

 

 

 

 

[seven 1366]

I guess I missed all those rallies in Bugtussle

[Hank Kingsley 20698]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The popular vote would still probably mean urban centers would dominate our political systems totally as they would be the only places candidates would  campaign in .  Not what a democratic republic is allegedly supposed to do.

This is a common response that doesn't really make much sense. If every vote counts the same, then you go everywhere. And you craft your policy ideas to everyone. 

If, right, now, we abolished the EC starting with 2024 election: We would be arguing about which healthcare plan offered by Rs or Ds is better, instead of Ds talking about universal healthcare and Rs having NO HEALTHCARE PLAN AT ALL. We would be talking about who has the better climate change plan, instead of one party DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE EVEN EXISTS. 

Also, the reality is around 55% of eligible voters actually vote in the general election. That is an absolutely embarrassing number, and the Electoral College discourages people to go to the polls. 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Urban centers, you mean those places where most people live? Those are the places that would dominate political systems?

 

As opposed to what we have now, rural areas, where fewer people live, dominating political systems?

 

 

 

 

It should be neither. There should be a balance. The needs and wishes of a city dweller are probably different than someone living on a farm.  They're no more important.

Are you saying those folks who feed us aren't important ?  Because they live in the country they're second class citizens who should be dominated by the wishes of some jack ass living in La ?

[David Dennison 18656]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It should be neither. There should be a balance. The needs and wishes of a city dweller are probably different than someone living on a farm.  They're no more important.

Are you saying those folks who feed us aren't important ?  Because they live in the country they're second class citizens who should be dominated by the wishes of some jack ass living in La ?

No.

That's why we have a House of Representatives.

[Hank Kingsley 20698]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It should be neither. There should be a balance.

You know what creates balance? Every single vote counting exactly the same. 

 

[wildcat09 29243]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

You know what creates balance? Every single vote counting exactly the same. 

 

“How dare you elitist latte sipping city folk think you’re better than me by thinking our votes should count the same. If you truly think we’re equal, you need to give me 1.5 votes to your 1 vote!”

This shit is ridiculous. One person one vote is the easiest system to implement and administer, it’s the fairest, and it would foster greater participation in our democracy. The people opposed to it aren’t opposed to it because it’s unfair, they’re opposed because they don’t want more people participating in our democracy.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

You know what creates balance? Every single vote counting exactly the same. 

 

And the candidates would cater to the wishes, and needs of the urban dwellers over the rural citizens in pretty much all instances.  Yeah quite the balance....That some of you don't seem to grasp the brilliance of the electoral college created by men 250 years ago is astounding.

[High Plains Drifter 10976]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It should be neither. There should be a balance. The needs and wishes of a city dweller are probably different than someone living on a farm.  They're no more important.

Are you saying those folks who feed us aren't important ?  Because they live in the country they're second class citizens who should be dominated by the wishes of some jack ass living in La ?

 

Unless you live off of eggs and arugula you buy at the local farmers' market, people living on a farm aren't feeding you. Giant corporations, whose CEO and upper management and 90+% of stockholders wouldn't know a farm if they fell into a waste pond of pig shit, are feeding you.

 

I'm not saying anybody is unimportant. I'm saying no one is more important than anyone else.

 

[Hank Kingsley 20698]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And the candidates would cater to the wishes, and needs of the urban dwellers over the rural citizens in pretty much all instances.  Yeah quite the balance....That some of you don't seem to grasp the brilliance of the electoral college created by men 250 years ago is astounding.

The United States is a nation of both big cities and small towns. While only 4.0% (775) of all cities had a population of 50,000 or more in 2018, collectively they contained 127.1 million people — nearly 39 percent of the U.S. population.   https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/subcounty-population-estimates.html

 

According to that stat 61% of the population lives in towns smaller than 50,000 people. If there vote counts exactly the same as someone from NY or LA, you think both parties will ignore them? 

Presidential nominees don't travel to Bumfuck, AR to speak in front of 5 people in a coffee shop during a general election. They are holding big rallies and people travel to see them. 

The Electoral College is practically a board game, and we're all fucking pawns. 

 

[JBJ 3649]

3 hours ago, Tuco said:

All you need is the majority of the House, the majority (or 60 Senators) and the President to pass it.  The most difficult of those would be the Senate, as the Republican Party would likely oppose it because their strength is derived from the small state advantage. 

It's not as much as you'd think.  The problem is going to be convincing a lot of states to vote against themselves.

Used 270-to-win's forecast consensus to set R/B/Swing states.  Used the Webster method (it's what we currently do) to apportion seats.  876 EVs is the maximum the Consitution allows with Webster apportionment.

538 EVs (current): 34.6% R, 46.7% B

876 EVs 33.7% R, 46.9% B

There are more R-leaning swing votes than B-leaning on 270s map, so the percentage of B-votes above is close to what's actually happening.  Basically, it is fairly tiny partisan-wise.

31 of the smaller states lose vote%, so it's unlikely to get Senate support.  13 are blue, so it's not very partisan either.

Edited February 26, 2020 by JBJ

[elfenix 34171]

7 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

61% of the population lives in towns smaller than 50,000 people.

lots of those are burbs tho.  texas city is less than 50,000 people but it's hardly rural.  b_t lives in a tax haven village in the middle of houston, you'd hardly consider him a small-town dweller.  going down the wikipedia list of MSAs, areas with 250k+ (so, laredo on up) totaled 256+ million in the 2010 census.  if we decide that's too small, anything 500k+ (corpus on up) is nearly 237 million. 

to get to 129 million you only need the top 16 MSAs, the smallest of which is cleveland at 3.6 million.  you're leaving off orlando, san diego, denver, and portland (rounding out the top 20). 

Edited February 26, 2020 by elfenix

[elfenix 34171]

anyway, as for rural areas, if we really gave a shit about them we'd stop using them to dilute votes in suburbs (looking at you, TX10)

[JBJ 3649]

The small states in the northern Great Plains and Rockies aren't mostly rural, they are mostly uninhabitable.  Most of the people who are there still live in cities/suburbs.

The two rural majority states are VT and ME.  PA and NC have the most number of rural districts.