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.
Vaktathi wrote: Congress functions differently from the President. Representatives represent their district, while in most cases electoral votes represent the entire state in a winner-take-all contest and have no locality to them.
Lets also be real, congressional districts are also hideously gerrymandered and are poorly representative as well
And state districts are even worse. Think about this, if state senates chose Congresspeople, New Yorkwould have to republicans for the last 12 years or so.
So your argument is that the state legislature and governor of New York, duly elected by the residents of NY state, shouldn't be allowed to choose the 2 senators to represent the state of NY in the Senate in Congress because the party affiliation of the Senators appointed by the state govt duly elected by the people of the state, wouldn't always reflect the same party affiliation of the presidential candidate that wins the popular vote in the state of NY?
No, because our senate districts are so gerrymandered for the republicans that despite D's outvoting R's 10/1, they would have no voice in congress. Schumer just won with 70% of the vote. D's vastly outnumber and outvote R's. But gerrymandering means that the R's retain the state senate. We were talking about gerrymandering, context is important.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
-
Well for one thing, the Iowa voter might depend on farming while the New Yorker depends on other important measures for his lifestyle. If you get rid of one or the other the entire system collapses.
But you aren't getting rid of anyone in a straight popular vote. They're both counted the same.
If anything, the electorate system encourage you not caring about certain voter groups. If you have really good support in the Iowa cities, you might be able to afford to lose all the Iowa farmers without you losing a single elector, since you'll win that state anyway and it doesn't matter if you get it by 51% or 90%. If proposing something that angers one million Iowa farmers gains you ten thousand Manhattaners (Manhattians) it'll be worth it if those 10k wins you manhattan, but you still retains Iowa with a million voters less. If it was a straight popular vote, those Iowa farmers would still carry weight when counting the national total.
What precisely did Mr. Trump offer these voters? Snake oil, say critics. Most economists predicted that policies built on Mr. Trump’s anti-immigration and antitrade rhetoric would hardly help unemployed, working-class people in places like Kentucky and West Virginia. But where these experts heard incoherent specifics, many voters heard a consistent deeper theme: A promise to work hard at restoring left-behind Americans’ dignity by bringing back jobs and striking back at the cultural elites who disdain them.
And this is how he won. It wasn't about racism/misogyny/etc... it was about a large segment of the population that has been continually ignored for more then a decade now, as both parties pandered to their special interests groups.
Trump didn't build a multi-billion dollar empire because he was stupid. Whether or not he delivers, his message was the message that many needed to hear, and it's why he won. That voting block, despite hating who they were voting for, were voting for the only candidate who talked to them for a change.
he allegedly (based on hearsay from trump himself), built a multi billion dollar empire. Making most of his money as he bankrupted his companies. odds are he's no where close to being a billionaire, let alone a mutli one. any word on his tax returns?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:08:01
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
Tweets containing swearing earlier were removed. Posting those is alright?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:08:07
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Yup. I lean liberal but that **** has got to stop. You don't counter bigotry by being bigoted.
I had a conversation recently with someone and I asked this question: "How would you like to raise a white son into a culture that openly demonizes white men?" Progressives would get a lot farther if they de-emphasized that particular talking point.
Ignoring the lunatic fringe, wherein White Man does indeed equal Devil, the message I generally hear from the progressive left is "being a white man in an inherent leg up". Is that openly demonizing white men? In my personal life, being a white man has been hugely beneficial.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
That's fair Manchu, I did this for you if it'd be better though.
Spoiler:
Uh oh I forgot to cover up T***P.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:11:11
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
You've said that, doesn't mean it's not a bad system.
CNN is claiming that the final vote tallies will have Trump winning the popular vote. If Trump wins the popular vote and the electoral college does that change you opinion of the system? Having the president win the electoral collage but lose the popular vote has happened 4 times in the 240 year history of our country, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. Splitting the electoral college and the popular vote is a rare occurrence.
This may shock you, but if Trump won the popular and Hillary the EC, I'd still call it a bad system. It's a bad system no matter what.
And it's happened two times in the last two decades, it's not uncommon. Besides, just because something is uncommon, doesn't mean it's not bad.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Yup. I lean liberal but that **** has got to stop. You don't counter bigotry by being bigoted.
I had a conversation recently with someone and I asked this question: "How would you like to raise a white son into a culture that openly demonizes white men?" Progressives would get a lot farther if they de-emphasized that particular talking point.
That's fair, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't a fairly significant amount of bigotry among (whatever percent you want to take a guess at) of Trump's supporters. You've got endorsements from neo-Nazis and the KKK. You've got him retweeting from white supremacists. You've got his treatment of and his remarks toward women (no, nobody believes that the 'wherever' you said Megyn Kelly was bleeding from was supposed to be her nose, Mr. President-Elect). You've got all his dogwhistle bullcrap and his openly racist remarks. You've got his remarks and proposed policy toward Muslims. There's also his VP pick and his anti-LGBTQ views. I'm sure not everyone who voted for him was a bigot, but they were there, there was absolutely a reason for it, and it should be addressed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:14:05
Of course it's presented without additional comment. Look the guy up on Twitter for a lark.
The reason Republicans so commonly get referred to as racist, misogynists, homophobic, or bigots is because they continually vote or profess support for politicians espousing those ideas.
You don't get to pretend that you don't support it when you are supporting those espousing the ideas.
When I added "That said, the truth is the truth, no matter the source" this was no mere bon mot, but a statement of Jewish principle formulated by our great sage Maimonidies. Judaism is fundamentally hostile to the notion that the Truth of a statement is contingent on the morality of the speaker.
But there is (or was) a tradition that claimed that moral virtue dictated truth: it's the underpinning of Medieval Christianity's use of Dei judicium (Trial by Combat/Ordeal).
A rather dark example of this was the practice of the Church holding "Disputations". These were ostensibly debates, held between leaders of the Church and the local Jewish community, often focusing on the divinity of Jesus. The similarity between these and trials by ordeal is that, in such trials, it was presumed that no one that is in error could possibly be correct... so mostly the Church simply didn't let the Jews talk. Alternatively, they were permitted to talk... but forbidden from 'blasphemies'. Which, given that denying the divinity of Jesus is a blasphemy, meant the Jews could talk, they just couldn't say anything to support their position... because, after all, the Church knew they were not only wrong, but evil. So why should good Christians listen to them?
To be fair, the one notable time the Jews actually got to argue back it was with Nachmanidies, and it's generally accepted that he 'won' the debate. In that he was awarded a prize (300 gold sólidos) by the King of Aragorn (never before had he heard "an unjust cause so nobly defended)... before he had to flee the wrath of the Church, going from Spain to settle in Jerusalem. Note that the Church sources record it differently, though they do record Nachmanidies being charged with blasphemy by the inquisition, and the orders to burn all copies of the Talmud that were found to offend Christian sensibilities.
Very big on book burning, those Churchmen that were convinced they were in the right.
That's fair, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't a fairly significant amount of bigotry among (whatever percent you want to take a guess at) of Trump's supporters. You've got endorsements from neo-Nazis and the KKK. You've got him retweeting from white supremacists. You've got his treatment of and his remarks toward women (no, nobody believes that the 'wherever' you said Megyn Kelly was bleeding from was supposed to be her nose, Mr. President-Elect). You've got all his dogwhistle bullcrap and his openly racist remarks. There's also his VP pick and his anti-LGBTQ views. I'm sure not everyone who voted for him was a bigot, but they were there, there was absolutely a reason for it, and it should be addressed.
Exactly. The people saying all Trump voters are bigoted are dead wrong, but it's also dead wrong to say that Trump or groups of his supporters aren't.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
MrDwhitey wrote: That's fair Manchu, I did this for you if it'd be better though.
Thanks MrD. Sadly, last night surprised me less than the election results.
It is pretty sad. I hope things get better sooner rather than later but we'll see. With the wicked rhetoric of this election the result has provided for expected but unfortunate things happening all over.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Vaktathi wrote: In a sense, I guess I could be construed as antifederalist, but I think the Presidency has moved in that direction. Its a national vote that most people see along natIonal party lines and most people vote for from a national perspective rather than a state perspective. The game is played at the state level but its not an office that operates at or which people view from the state level. The nature of the presidential office and practical functioning of the electoral college no longer support the rationale behind its existence, and ends up giving a disproportionately large voice to specific voters in specific locales while taking the bulk of most locales and populations for granted, effectively writing them off as irrelevant in most races.
The importance of some areas above would exist without the electoral college. A straight up popular vote deciding the presidency only requires that the winner get over 50% of the vote regardless of where those votes come from. The 7 most populous states in the US account for more people than voted in the 2016 election. In a popular election candidates can target the most populous states and ignore the rest because candidates would only need focus on the shortest path the 50%+ of the voters. The Electoral College requires candidates to focus on the path to 270 electoral votes which spreads the campaign over more states.
Again, the popular vote and the electoral vote has only been split 4 times in 240 years, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. It's not like it happens every time or even a significant portion of the time.
Vaktathi wrote: In a sense, I guess I could be construed as antifederalist, but I think the Presidency has moved in that direction. Its a national vote that most people see along natIonal party lines and most people vote for from a national perspective rather than a state perspective. The game is played at the state level but its not an office that operates at or which people view from the state level. The nature of the presidential office and practical functioning of the electoral college no longer support the rationale behind its existence, and ends up giving a disproportionately large voice to specific voters in specific locales while taking the bulk of most locales and populations for granted, effectively writing them off as irrelevant in most races.
The importance of some areas above would exist without the electoral college. A straight up popular vote deciding the presidency only requires that the winner get over 50% of the vote regardless of where those votes come from. The 7 most populous states in the US account for more people than voted in the 2016 election. In a popular election candidates can target the most populous states and ignore the rest because candidates would only need focus on the shortest path the 50%+ of the voters. The Electoral College requires candidates to focus on the path to 270 electoral votes which spreads the campaign over more states.
Again, the popular vote and the electoral vote has only been split 4 times in 240 years, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. It's not like it happens every time or even a significant portion of the time.
and instead of focusing on the 7 most populated, the focus on the 7 that aren't. Why is it bad to focus on the majority, and not bad to focus on 7 swing states. Either way 43 states are being ignored.
Yup. I lean liberal but that **** has got to stop. You don't counter bigotry by being bigoted.
I had a conversation recently with someone and I asked this question: "How would you like to raise a white son into a culture that openly demonizes white men?" Progressives would get a lot farther if they de-emphasized that particular talking point.
Ignoring the lunatic fringe, wherein White Man does indeed equal Devil, the message I generally hear from the progressive left is "being a white man in an inherent leg up". Is that openly demonizing white men? In my personal life, being a white man has been hugely beneficial.
Strange I have found the opposite. I was turned down from university when I had higher grades, was on more sports teams and had more volunteering/extra curricular then a number of my friends who got into the same university. The difference? They were minorities or females.
I have never gotten out of a speeding ticket, my wife has gotten out of literally 5+ that I know of.
I was turned down for scholarships because I wasn't a minority. I have been turned down for employment because the company was looking for more minorities.
If anything I would say that we have reached the end of the "White male" Privilege era. But as always YMMV
Yup. I lean liberal but that **** has got to stop. You don't counter bigotry by being bigoted.
I had a conversation recently with someone and I asked this question: "How would you like to raise a white son into a culture that openly demonizes white men?" Progressives would get a lot farther if they de-emphasized that particular talking point.
Ignoring the lunatic fringe, wherein White Man does indeed equal Devil, the message I generally hear from the progressive left is "being a white man in an inherent leg up". Is that openly demonizing white men? In my personal life, being a white man has been hugely beneficial.
Being a white male is undoubtedly a leg up, and it's important to acknowledge that. But in acknowledgement, it's important to keep an un-hateful tone if you're going to have a discussion. I've heard the tone go far past reasonable on many occasion. It's not healthy.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
You've said that, doesn't mean it's not a bad system.
CNN is claiming that the final vote tallies will have Trump winning the popular vote. If Trump wins the popular vote and the electoral college does that change you opinion of the system? Having the president win the electoral collage but lose the popular vote has happened 4 times in the 240 year history of our country, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. Splitting the electoral college and the popular vote is a rare occurrence.
This may shock you, but if Trump won the popular and Hillary the EC, I'd still call it a bad system. It's a bad system no matter what.
And it's happened two times in the last two decades, it's not uncommon. Besides, just because something is uncommon, doesn't mean it's not bad.
CNN is calling the popular vote for Trump, not all voting counts have been finalized by all the states so your claim that it's happened twice in the last 2 decades isn't true yet.
The basis for your argument is that the Electoral College doesn't properly reflect the popular vote and I'm showing you factual indisputable evidence that in 93% of presidential elections the Electoral College reflects the exact outcome of the popular vote. So why is the electoral college a bad system when it does what you say you want it to do 93% of the time?
Remember, this is the same city were the cop got busted for his neonazi tattoos.
Actually it was a German pride tattoo, similar to an Irish Knot or Celtic Cross. But since its Germans it has to be related to Nazis....i mean come on, he is a cop right? (Sarcasm)
Insectum7 wrote: Let's not forget Trump has also made some pretty harsh statements himself.
No one has forgotten or will forget or be allowed to forget the outrageous things Trump said on the election trail. Tit for tat is not good enough, either as an excuse or an explanation. These people say Trump is not their president but I see these explicitly racist and violent messages and I'm not convinced - seems like Trump (and specifically the super horrible Trump they are thinking of) is exactly their role model.
Critics of the system that uses the electoral vote to choose a president argue that the system is unfair. They say that the system is undemocratic because the number of electoral votes is not directly proportional to the population of the state. This gives smaller states a disproportionate influence in presidential elections. For example, Hawaii has a population of only 1.36 million but has 4 electoral votes while Oregon has a population 3 times that size (3.8 million) but only 7 electoral votes. If the power of a single vote were calculated in terms of number of number of people per electoral vote, states like New York (519,000 people per electoral vote) and California (508,000 people per electoral vote) would lose. The winners would be states like Wyoming (143,000 people per electoral vote) and North Dakota (174,000 people per electoral vote).[1]
So voters in wyoming basically get 4 votes to californias 1.
Yup. I lean liberal but that **** has got to stop. You don't counter bigotry by being bigoted.
I had a conversation recently with someone and I asked this question: "How would you like to raise a white son into a culture that openly demonizes white men?" Progressives would get a lot farther if they de-emphasized that particular talking point.
Ignoring the lunatic fringe, wherein White Man does indeed equal Devil, the message I generally hear from the progressive left is "being a white man in an inherent leg up". Is that openly demonizing white men? In my personal life, being a white man has been hugely beneficial.
Strange I have found the opposite. I was turned down from university when I had higher grades, was on more sports teams and had more volunteering/extra curricular then a number of my friends who got into the same university. The difference? They were minorities or females.
I have never gotten out of a speeding ticket, my wife has gotten out of literally 5+ that I know of.
Well, yeah. Being a pretty woman is also an inherent leg up, in many situations.
I was turned down for scholarships because I wasn't a minority. I have been turned down for employment because the company was looking for more minorities.
Interesting. What field do you work/study in? I am a journeyman carpenter and now training as a quantity surveyor (construction cost estimates, basically). In both cases my appearance alone gives my professional opinion more weight.
If anything I would say that we have reached the end of the "White male" Privilege era. But as always YMMV
Oh, you're probably right. It will be a better future for my daughters, I'm sure.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Remember, this is the same city were the cop got busted for his neonazi tattoos.
Actually it was a German pride tattoo, similar to an Irish Knot or Celtic Cross. But since its Germans it has to be related to Nazis....i mean come on, he is a cop right? (Sarcasm)
Ah, right. So his involvement with a neofascist white supremacist organization (Blood and Honor) was a coincidence, right?
Vaktathi wrote: In a sense, I guess I could be construed as antifederalist, but I think the Presidency has moved in that direction. Its a national vote that most people see along natIonal party lines and most people vote for from a national perspective rather than a state perspective. The game is played at the state level but its not an office that operates at or which people view from the state level. The nature of the presidential office and practical functioning of the electoral college no longer support the rationale behind its existence, and ends up giving a disproportionately large voice to specific voters in specific locales while taking the bulk of most locales and populations for granted, effectively writing them off as irrelevant in most races.
The importance of some areas above would exist without the electoral college. A straight up popular vote deciding the presidency only requires that the winner get over 50% of the vote regardless of where those votes come from. The 7 most populous states in the US account for more people than voted in the 2016 election. In a popular election candidates can target the most populous states and ignore the rest because candidates would only need focus on the shortest path the 50%+ of the voters. The Electoral College requires candidates to focus on the path to 270 electoral votes which spreads the campaign over more states.
Again, the popular vote and the electoral vote has only been split 4 times in 240 years, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. It's not like it happens every time or even a significant portion of the time.
and instead of focusing on the 7 most populated, the focus on the 7 that aren't. Why is it bad to focus on the majority, and not bad to focus on 7 swing states. Either way 43 states are being ignored.
The swing states would still get the focus without the electoral collage because they are the less polarized states and therefore have the biggest payoff for candidates. There are red states, blue states and purple states. For several elections cycles we've seen the majority of the red and blue states stay the same but the purple states flip back and forth. The reliably red and blue states will stay reliably red and blue regardless of the electoral college. States that can be flipped from red to blue or blue to red will get the most attention because they can have the biggest impact by adding votes to one side that might have gone the other way. Democrats won't win Oklahoma, Republicans won't win Massachusetts but either side could win North Carolina so where are they going to both spend time and money? In NC and they'll take OK and MA for granted. That's not due to the electoral college that's just due to established partisanship within the states.
