The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

This is going to blow the whole case wide open!

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:

The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.

No, it does nothing of the sort. If anything it gives the majority in the large states much more power than they would in a strait majority or IRV system.

We talked about this about a week ago.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Breotan wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!

It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in

Wow. I did not realize it was still unelected.

Apologies for going OT, but Americans should thank their lucky stars that their ancestors turned their backs on British 'democracy,' because the House of Lords is a insult to anybody who believes in democracy.

There is almost 900 members. That's more than the religious comittee in Iran that advises the Ayatollah!

Only the Chinese communist party's politburo has more unelected lawmakers than the house of lords!

Members of the Lords are either Bishops or peers. Peers being the desendents of the Lords and Barons that used to rule England.

Lloyd George kicked ass 100 years ago, when he took on the Lords, and in recent years, their power has been curbed.

BUT if you make a big financial donation to one of Britain's main political parties, then chances are you'll end up in the Lords, with the power to make laws over the nation!

What price democracy when you can just buy your way in?

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:

The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.

No, it does nothing of the sort. If anything it gives the majority in the large states much more power than they would in a strait majority or IRV system.

Definately incorrect on straight majority and even dubious on IRV system.

We talked about this about a week ago.

Indeed we did... doesn't mean you're right.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:

The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.

No, it does nothing of the sort. If anything it gives the majority in the large states much more power than they would in a strait majority or IRV system.

Definately incorrect on straight majority and even dubious on IRV system.

We talked about this about a week ago.

Indeed we did... doesn't mean you're right.

To quote myself

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Continuing on my last post, getting rid of EC would actually give big states less power.

If you think in terms of 1D vote and 1R vote canceling out (which, for a strait majority with only two candidates, it very much does) it's quite interesting. In NY, obama won, and thus got all the deligates (100%), but if you cancel out the votes, only 28.601% of the votes matter. In CA it's 23.75% for Obama, in FL it's 0.88% for Obama, and in TX it's 16.02% for Romney.

Edit: here's another good example. Obama won by 23.42% of the EC, but a mere 3.93% of the popular.

Edit:

For those interested on checking the numbers,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

(on bottom, first dropdown "United States presidential election, 2012" and then the last sub-dropdown "state results")

I used the very easy (for a graphing calculator) formula (winner-looser)/(winner+looser)*100% to figure out the percentage left. The (winner-looser) finds the number of votes more that the winner got, and (winner+looser) finds total votes.

**Gordon Shumway**

Correct me if I'm failing to miss something here but states wouldn't matter at all if the electoral college were disbanded. 1 person, 1 vote. Add them up to see who wins. Why would states even come into play? I think I would be much better this way as now all the news ever focuses on is the horse race, which is much easier to do with the electoral college. More polls, better polls (because they can get much more granular at the state level) means more time can be spent on them instead of, you know, the stuff people actually should be basing their decisions on.

**Crimson**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Members of the Lords are either Bishops or peers. Peers being the desendents of the Lords and Barons that used to rule England.

No they're not! Most of the members of House of Lords are life peers, who are appointed, not hereditary. I'm Finnish and even I know this.

Sure, it is still not a terribly good system.

**Co'tor Shas**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Correct me if I'm failing to miss something here but states wouldn't matter at all if the electoral college were disbanded. 1 person, 1 vote. Add them up to see who wins. Why would states even come into play? I think I would be much better this way as now all the news ever focuses on is the horse race, which is much easier to do with the electoral college. More polls, better polls (because they can get much more granular at the state level) means more time can be spent on them instead of, you know, the stuff people actually should be basing their decisions on.

Yep, that's the point.

**Charles Rampant**

I also feel the need to observe that coming into this thread twice a week to bring up British politics seems poor form. Is the House of Lords really relevant to the (interesting) discussion at hand?

**motyak**

Good point, it isn't. I know some users really want to discuss british stuff like that but this isn't the place

**Breotan**

Frazzled wrote:
He's drawing Reagan democrats as well. As his tide rises, more will hear him and he will gain more support.

They're supporting him now but who will they support in the general election?

**Sarouan**

I like this topic. We can see the true face of people in plain sight, and keep it for posterity later.

Wonder how much time this will keep on. I'm not really surprised it's going that way, to be honest - this is just a natural consequence of what happened before, after all.

So, after the Republican show, how do you expect Trump to react? Even in the case he would lose, I don't know why but I'm not seeing him swallowing his loss like this. He really looks like a guy who will never accept any sort of defeat. Do you think he could hurt really bad both sides if he was running as independant (actually, I'm thinking the Republican would be more hurt than the Democrats in that case)?

**Ahtman**

It doesn't make sense for Republicans or Democrats that liked Reagan to support Trump. Of course no one has ever really accused the US of having smart voters lately so it shouldn't be a surprise.

**shasolenzabi**

Okay, 1st, I was pleased to see Bernie come out swinging and dominate at the CNN/Univision debate, he was more strong than ever, even more so than the Flint Debate, got the amazing standing ovation, the MSM as usual tried to spin it Hillary's way, but having watched, he actually thrashed her, and was almost like Rorschach in that prison scene

2nd, Trumps' Chicago Rally just got cancelled.

**Ensis Ferrae**

shasolenzabi wrote:

2nd, Trumps' Chicago Rally just got cancelled.

On the one hand, that's a good thing... on the other, how else are the police supposed to practice riot control for when the Cubs win the world series??

**d-usa**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
shasolenzabi wrote:

2nd, Trumps' Chicago Rally just got cancelled.

On the one hand, that's a good thing... on the other, how else are the police supposed to practice riot control for when the Cubs win the world series??

Maybe the realized the odds of that happening and decided it was a waste of money to prepare for it?

**Scrabb**

whembly wrote:

The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.

Disagree.

As a voter in a large state I know my vote will not affect whoever Texas nominates. The EC is an outdated system that makes a swing-state voter end up being harassed by tons of campaign ads. It discourages votes and lets people lose the popular vote and still win.

**d-usa**

40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.

This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.

This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.

It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...

Big cities only matters then.

**Compel**

On the bright side, I'm finding this discussion all very interesting, our party leadership setup in the UK is somewhat different and it's interesting to learn about this.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.

This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.

It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...

Big cities only matters then.

Right now my vote means jack. i might as well take a dump on the street, write "Hillary Clinton" on the side walk with it, put it on Instagram, and tag @WhiteHouse on it. Because that is just as effective as voting.

This goes for every single person not voting Republican in Oklahoma. There is zero reason for us to even cast a vote. It's a waste of gas and it's a waste of money to even print the ballots.

Every popular vote counts if you get rid of the electoral college.

**Scrabb**

whembly wrote:

It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...

Big cities only matters then.

For choosing who gets the dubious pleasure of non-stop attack ads for months.

Meanwhile deciding whether or not to vote would no longer be automatically invalidated for millions of people.

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

Big cities only matters then.

There are undoubtedly a fairly large number of Republican voters in NYC, no??? Just as D can "waste" his vote in Oklahoma on a Dem candidate, right now a right leaning New Yorker's vote is wasted because all the EC votes go to one side, "everyone" knows that NY is a blue state.

I agree with d-usa, in a straight vote for vote race, with no Electoral College, elections would be more interesting. I really think that the split of left leaning and right leaning voters is much closer to 50/50 than you appear to.

**whembly**

Guys... what's our country's name?

**Matt.Kingsley**

The Peoples' Democratic Republic of America?

**Grey Templar**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.

This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.

It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...

Big cities only matters then.

Right now my vote means jack. i might as well take a dump on the street, write "Hillary Clinton" on the side walk with it, put it on Instagram, and tag @WhiteHouse on it. Because that is just as effective as voting.

This goes for every single person not voting Republican in Oklahoma. There is zero reason for us to even cast a vote. It's a waste of gas and it's a waste of money to even print the ballots.

Every popular vote counts if you get rid of the electoral college.

And its the opposite in California. Right wing votes really only matter for local and state elections here, but we're worth jack squat in presidential elections.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
Guys... what's our country's name?

And what are the first three words of the Constitution?

**Gordon Shumway**

whembly wrote:
Guys... what's our country's name?

What does the name of an Italian mapmaker have to do with the electoral college?

. The name came before the electoral college by eleven years if my math is right: 1776 to 1787.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:
Guys... what's our country's name?

And what are the first three words of the Constitution?

The next bit is just as good: "in order to form a more perfect UNION", funny it doesn't say "in order to form a more perfect conglomeration that is somewhat proportionally represented in a general election". It rolls off the tongue so much nicer.

**whembly**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:
Guys... what's our country's name?

And what are the first three words of the Constitution?

That's not what I'm asking.

We are 'The United States of America'.

Thats 50 mini-countries.

Each of these "mini-countries" voters should have a "say" in the Presidential Elections... no?

Full straight elections means the candidates only need to focus on tiny regions of the US, such as:
1 New York
2 Los Angeles
3 Chicago
4 Houston
5 Philadelphia
7 San Antonio
8 San Diego
9 Dallas
10 San Jose

Any candidate that kicks ass there would be well on their way in winning the popular vote.

Feth the other parts of the country

Good luck...

Hence why we're a Republic and not a direct democracy.

**NinthMusketeer**

whembly wrote:

Each of these "mini-countries" voters should have a "say" in the Presidential Elections... no?

Yes, each state should and does have a say. So that isn't an issue. However, each person does not have a say. Getting rid of the electoral college doesn't suddenly make swing-state populations vanish.