-->
@fauxlaw
So:
How many individuals make up the total population of the U.S.A?
And how many individuals make up the Electoral College?
Now there's a simple statistic and a very unbalanced one at that.
the electoral college should be abolished for the popular vote
Posts
Total:
86
-->
@Greyparrot
The Irish have always been pretty good at bullying themselves.
Don't be fooled by American Irish propaganda.
-->
@zedvictor4
The Irish have always been pretty good at bullying themselves.Don't be fooled by American Irish propaganda.
Well, thank god for mob rule enforced UK hegemony, cause god forbid different cultural factions want an equal say.
-->
@Greyparrot
Therein lies the crux of most issues.....assumed difference.
If one is compelled to assume a difference, one will grow up believing in an assumed difference.
Culture is conditioned non-sense.
Ask Mr Coronavirus.
Top of the morning to ya.
-->
@zedvictor4
You keep insisting on a total USA population as a factor, but its State populations by which the presidency is determined, so the total population of the country is immaterial.
In that vein, there is 1 vote for every single district in each state, and two additional votes for each state. But, regardless of the population of each state, it's still a matter of winning State elections, not a federal election. Why is that so hard to understand?
-->
@fauxlaw
A system is a system and can be understood.
My point is that individual States have their own systems headed by a Senator.
Whereas the President is the head of state for the total "immaterial" population, representing a single system.
It would therefore be more logical if individual States were regarded as "immaterial" when electing the National head of state.
One person one vote....A President elected by a majority of the people of the U.S.A....No contrived Electoral College vote necessary.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Why do you regard the people of the U.S.A. as immaterial?
-->
@n8nrgmi
Great idea. Here is one problem for you. Please tell me how you wish to address it:
If we take the most recent result, the 2016 election we have the following:
Trump/Rep: 46.1%
Hillary/Dem: 48.2%
Other/Ind: 5.7%
So what do you do? Whoever has a majority will effectively have 100% of the control over decisions, meaning that if the majority was Hilliary, then 51.8% of the country will be pissed off because they aren't at all being represented.
-->
@Imabench
This is so simple and so obvious but is rarely seen in democratic political systems.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the partys favoured by the first past the post system (and thus, are the only ones in a position of power to change the system) and the voting public that wants to be fairly represented.
In the US, the Dem and Rep partys have exactly zero interest in perusing any sort of reform here since it reduces their likelihood of maintaining power in future elections.
-->
@zedvictor4
My point is that individual States have their own systems headed by a Senator.
No, that's two Senators, and they do not lead any State. States are led by their executive; the Governer. Where did you learn your civics, and what were you doing instead?
Whereas the President is the head of state for the total "immaterial" population, representing a single system.
No, the President is the executive of the collective United States, each State populated by its citizens, who are also represented in each district in each State by an elected Representative of Congress and two Senators in each State. You, individually, are represented in federal government by a President, by a Representative of your your federal district, two Senators of your State. In your State, you are represented by a State Representative and a State Senator of your State district, and a Governor of your State. Get it?
It would therefore be more logical if individual States were regarded as "immaterial" when electing the National head of state.
I did not say that citizens of States are immaterial. I said that a nationwide election of a President is immaterial. Read what I write, not what yuou want to read.
One person one vote
That's what you have. one person of many persons in each State, regardless of the population of each State. Your state is apportioned a number of electors according to your State population. It is not a nationwide vote. It is an election by States.
Why do you regard the people of the U.S.A. as immaterial?
I do not regard the people of the USA as immaterial. Get it? I've laid out your personal representation n government. Is that immaterial?
-->
@zedvictor4
One person one vote....A President elected by a majority of the people of the U.S.A....No contrived Electoral College vote necessary.
The Founding Fathers specifically advocated against majority rule because of its capacity for tyranny on the minority
-->
@ILikePie5
The Founding Fathers specifically advocated against majority rule because of its capacity for tyranny on the minority
Ask the Irish how mob rule is such a great system in the UK.
-->
@ILikePie5
@zedvictor4
Why do you regard the people of the U.S.A. as immaterial?
The extra 4 million California votes are immaterial. California is a cesspool and a cancerous state. The EC keeps California from having the power to destroy the nation on its own.
Think of the EC as a naval ship with watertight doors. In case one compartment gets flooded with insane people, we can limit the destruction to just that state.
-->
@ATroubledMan
The primaries make up for that a certain extent and the fact the primaries not being a popular vote means candidates can campaign out of a few major places, and I think Trump proved that there are far more swing states than you might realize. Allowing a win by plurality or popular vote also allows for regional favorites that may even be hated by most people can easily win the office
-->
@ILikePie5
So instead we have tyranny on the majority?
.. and this is better how?
-->
@Envisage
<br>So instead we have tyranny on the majority?.. and this is better how?
Is your majority representative of the entire nation or does it come from the 6 million votes of New York and California which definitely don’t constitute the nation? Because my “minority” comes from the entire nation. What I’m saying is that majority doesn’t represent the entire nation while the EC forces a broad coalition of voters from different places.
-->
@ILikePie5
6 million votes of NYC out of 300 million is not enough for a majority. So your point is moot.
-->
@Envisage
6 million votes of NYC out of 300 million is not enough for a majority. So your point is moot.
That’s not what I’m saying. My votes are much more spread out while yours aren’t considering 6 million are centered in NY and CA. Therefore my votes are more representative of the nation than your votes.
-->
@ILikePie5
No, they are equally representative. 6 million lives in one place doesn't suddenly make them have fewer rights than if they chose to live spread apart.
-->
@Envisage
No, they are equally representative. 6 million lives in one place doesn't suddenly make them have fewer rights than if they chose to live spread apart.
6 million voters in two places don’t decide the course of the nation. Location does matter because each region’s culture is different obviously there are going to be some that are alienated. But the goal is to get a majority of the cultures which Trump did. He got the South, Maine 2nd, Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest. Only region he didn’t get is West Coast. Democrats got Northeast, West Coast, A bit of Midwest, and some of Southwest. Trump has more appeal representatively.
-->
@Greyparrot
Liberals wanting CA and NY to dictate the election 🤦♂️
-->
@n8nrgmi
"Fly-over" America deserves a voice too.
-->
@ILikePie5
Make America Detroit Again.
Vote Crazy Whitmer 2024.
-->
@ILikePie5
6 million voters in two places don’t decide the course of the nation. Location does matter because each region’s culture is different obviously there are going to be some that are alienated. But the goal is to get a majority of the cultures which Trump did. He got the South, Maine 2nd, Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest. The only region he didn’t get is the West Coast. Democrats got Northeast, West Coast, A bit of Midwest, and some of Southwest. Trump has more appeal representatively.
The argument against the EC is so flawed on many levels due to the fact opposing ideologies in overwhelming liberal enclaves usually don't bother to spend time and money to vote when they know the outcome is already assured. Trump once said if the rules were to get the popular vote, he would have spent more than zero campaign stops in California. Outlawing the EC won't stop populist outsider candidates from defeating establishment fossils like Hillary and Biden.
Hillary and Biden are the toxic leftovers for the DNC like McCain and Romney were for the GOP.
-->
@n8nrgmi
I'd tweak NDP to make it better. If you win 60% of the vote, you should be in office for 60% of a 10 year term. It would promote third parties, who have had their members having to compromise with other parties in order to get some of what they want, but this way, everyone votes for their favorite party.
-->
@Greyparrot
As a Chicagoan, let's not do that
-->
@Alec
that ten yer term stuff ain't a bad idea but ten years is a long time