Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

I think the electoral college still has functionality personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Omerta said:

I think the electoral college still has functionality personally.

It's function is to make certain people's votes count more than others so if that's your bag, then yeah I suppose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

Ranked choice and the popular vote aren't mutually exclusive. 

I didn't mean to imply that they are. What I was trying to say was that just popular vote alone isn't enough or the best choice. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

It's function is to make certain people's votes count more than others so if that's your bag, then yeah I suppose. 

I mean, you do realize that if you do away with it without some kind of replacement that you are doing the same thing... Over half of the population of this country falls in 9 states. For reference... there are 50 states. If you are legit worried about the electoral college and your solution is to give all the power to the north east, florida, texas, and California.... Your intentions are not righteous or morally sound. 

haf of US population county map

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump got more votes in Massachusetts than Alabama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I didn't mean to imply that they are. What I was trying to say was that just popular vote alone isn't enough or the best choice. 

I agree. But don't be let perfect be the enemy of better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May we forever chase perfection, knowing that we will likely fail to attain it, but that in the pursuit we will achieve greatness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sarge said:

May we forever chase perfection, knowing that we will likely fail to attain it, but that in the pursuit we will achieve greatness. 

That is funny you say that, because that was the exact quote in The Federalist Papers that pertains to the Electoral college since its Inception. If it cannot be perfect, then let it be excellent. I believe that is the quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

Trump got more votes in Massachusetts than Alabama.

Okay, what exactly does that prove? I mean other than you got more votes in Massachusetts than Alabama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Omerta said:

That is funny you say that, because that was the exact quote in The Federalist Papers that pertains to the Electoral college since its Inception. If it cannot be perfect, then let it be excellent. I believe that is the quote.

Yeah, and their thought was that more informed electors would override the peoples' vote. I think we've demonstrably proven that will never happen outside of of or two meaningless protests. 

14 minutes ago, Omerta said:

Okay, what exactly does that prove? I mean other than you got more votes in Massachusetts than Alabama.

It means that it doesn't mean that those states would simply decide everything since it would count people that vote the opposite way of their neighbors everywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

Yeah, and their thought was that more informed electors would override the peoples' vote. I think we've demonstrably proven that will never happen outside of of or two meaningless protests. 

It means that it doesn't mean that those states would simply decide everything since it would count people that vote the opposite way of their neighbors everywhere. 

it does though, because if you have a candidate who's willing to just play Regional politics and make life nice for those people in three or four states, there's literally no more checks and balances against that. So really a candidate could come along and make life really nice at the expense of the rest of the country, just to get elected president.

that doesn't even take into account the fact that less populated areas have to be that way, because Farms have to be somewhere, and I seriously doubt if the next agricultural neck is going to happen in downtown Manhattan. There is a reason even though states have electoral votes, and that's because those states are arguably more vital to our economy and our survival in the more populated states. You can't discount the needs of people in that state to appease those of a state with a larger population, if you do that we're looking at disaster.

the Electoral College ensures that the president appeals to the broadest base of the country.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Ngata's point is that what he is describing already happens, since politicans court the votes of swing states and ignore those that are deep blue or deep red. 

Electoral college needs to go, but Sarge is also correct, we need ranked choice voting as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so bad about giving states like California and Texas more electoral power? Why should we care so deeply about enhancing voting power of states where nobody lives?

Also the Electoral College isn't forcing politicians to campaign in small states. They will focus the brunt of their campaigning, as usual, in high-population states where the polls are close, the so-called battleground states.

The alternative vote for presidents would be great, but it's even more crucial that we stop gerrymandering and get mixed-member representation in Congress. Neither of these things will ever happen though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California and Texas already have "more electoral power". They have the largest impact on who wins the election by a large margin. California alone owns 21% of the electoral college / votes. Winning California, one state, means you are 1/5 of the way to being President.

Edited by DalaiLama4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1/5 toward being President, yes, but 21% of the electoral votes? Not entirely. Out of the 538 electoral votes, California's 55 is 10.2%, which doesn't sound too bad considering California contains approximately 12.1% of the country's population.

So (and I'm genuinely asking here), should each state's electoral representation match its percent of population as closely as possible?

It's also worth pointing out that this is mostly a hot talking point right now because liberals are salty of all the rural states that can get 2 Republican senators fairly easily. And it's not a totally invalid point. The Senate has some pretty serious imbalance with regard to population...but then again, wasn't that the point of the Senate? To give each state equal representation no matter what? There's a lot to unpack here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Representation by population helps, and ranked choice voting in addition to that would almost certainly solve a lot of issues with the system. That and making any election day a mandatory holiday so most people don't need to leave work to vote. But that's in a democracy, and America has never been a democracy, and it never will be if trends continue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the idea of assigning a state's electoral votes proportionally to percentage of votes, F4E.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe give each state a say exactly proportional to the number of people that vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the craziest aspect of the electoral system is the possible juxtapositions. Hillary received 3 million more votes and yet Trump won the election fairly convincingly. It wasn't a landslide (like his win in 2020 will be unless the Dems provide a great candidate) but it was convincingly. That alone should raise eyebrows. The system is broken, not obsolete. Let's fix it, not scrap it. I agree with JD. Electoral votes based on percentage in each state. Round up to the winner, though. No scale where you round down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

 

Here are some of the various systems they could play around with. I'm a bigger fan of the Proportional Popular vote, where each state awards 2 EC votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state, and the remainder is split up by the proportion of the popular vote. So Trump would still win because he took all those Rust Belt states, but it'd be closer to equivalency of what the actual vote was, and more peoples votes matter, rather than having a Democrat in Texas count for nothing, and vice versa for a Republican in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just to point out the house (and not therefore electoral college votes) was supposed to grow a state the population did, but then they just decided to cap it at the level set in 1910 (US Population 92 million) for no real good reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikki Haley just resigned. 

Huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the practical difference between electoral college votes based on % of vote gotten, and just simply using the popular vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×