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.
Whether or not propaganda is art is absolutely not a separate topic. It is the definition of modern politics. Especially in America where our leader is a media figure. Don't put your head in the sand just because the nation farted. It might be modern art-poop on the sidewalk and call it art-but it is art because of its ability to persuade.
1. Er...what?
2. Now we disagree on two things: that its art and also that its appropriate for the thread.
3. This does beg the question-if the entire nation ate redbeans and rice, would the resulting mass green house emission knock the planet off its orbit of the sun?
EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.
We might be talking past one another but, I'll try:
Rhetoric is an art form. Rhetoric is the art of manipulating people based on argumentation (through words, but we will extend it because of modern media). It doesn't matter if your argument is based on lies or heresay, or falsehoods or truth, if you make it effectively, you are conducting your art form well. There are ethical rules and stipulations an honest rhetorical artist uses. No rhetorical artist that is effective constrains themselves to those rules. Sorry if this is reading like a Vonnegut book. So be it.
Earlier in this thread we had a person, let's call him "likes nothing", make a strenuous case that people were getting all worked up about the Russian hacking stuff over nothing because the us did it too. Fair enough. Then his argument went into how he only cared because people were saying Clinton won only because of the hacking. When asked who these "people" were, he went silent. That is a rhetorical fallacy (technique of art-albeit an unethical one) called a straw man. It is art because it involves an artistic medium to convey a point. It was illogical and unethical, but it was persuasive. It was art. It was politics. It was modern society in a nutshell.
EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.
Pro-tip Republicans: its not swearing in time yet and your guy just outdid his opponent in the potential bribery charge thing.
What Cabinet position is he getting? VA?
What are you yammering about bribery? The AG in Florida?
You're right-I assumed he would hand off the operation of his companies. If he doesn't then they don't need Kirchner to pay him off.
Having an advisor who has a direct management interest in his companies at the same time he 1) sets policies including major contracts; 2) has inside information on government policies and negotiations with other countries and major companies would be a screaming conflict of interest anywhere else.
I see on other boards the Trumptskiites are already lapping it up. Dog this is disappointing to see the American people do this (or they're paid Russian posters of course-no not joking).
Yeah, if Kirchner doesn't put his gak in a blind trust, or simply quit his current job, the amount of professional "insider information" is ridiculous.
***Rhetoric is an art form. Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.
****There are ethical rules and stipulations an honest rhetorical artist uses. Literally none of that applies to propaganda (or marketing for that matter).
****Earlier in this thread we had a person, let's call him "likes nothing", This person sounds familiar. Does he have an unnatural fascination with guns and wiener dogs?
****make a strenuous case that people were getting all worked up about the Russian hacking stuff over nothing because the us did it too. I'm more that I'm not in the mood to go to war over something the DNC did.
*** Fair enough. Then his argument went into how he only cared because people were saying Clinton won only because of the hacking. When asked who these "people" were, he went silent. That is a rhetorical fallacy (technique of art-albeit an unethical one) called a straw man. It is art because it involves an artistic medium to convey a point. It was illogical and unethical, but it was persuasive. It was art. It was politics. It was modern society in a nutshell. None of this relates to Leni "Hitler's Dreamy" R or the the Meryl Streep statement (didn't see it because I am a guy and would rather claw my own eyes out).
EDIT: If you want to debate among art historicans and art ethicists (is that a thing?) whether Propaganda is art, then I'd submit this is the wrong forum entirely as most of us here are discussing only our gut opinions on the matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah, if Kirchner doesn't put his gak in a blind trust, or simply quit his current job, the amount of professional "insider information" is ridiculous.
Now we're on the same page. Same goes for all of his family, but this one is official so its bad, real bad.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/09 21:39:39
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?
People think that the EC was supposed to prevent national hysteria from electing an unsuitable demagogue, yet we are days away from Pres Drumpf.
That's probably why people are saying the College is not working as intended.
So... therein lies the fault.
That's not what the EC was intended to do?
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.'”
***Rhetoric is an art form.
Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.
****There are ethical rules and stipulations an honest rhetorical artist uses.
Literally none of that applies to propaganda (or marketing for that matter).
****Earlier in this thread we had a person, let's call him "likes nothing",
This person sounds familiar. Does he have an unnatural fascination with guns and wiener dogs?
****make a strenuous case that people were getting all worked up about the Russian hacking stuff over nothing because the us did it too.
I'm more that I'm not in the mood to go to war over something the DNC did.
*** Fair enough. Then his argument went into how he only cared because people were saying Clinton won only because of the hacking. When asked who these "people" were, he went silent. That is a rhetorical fallacy (technique of art-albeit an unethical one) called a straw man. It is art because it involves an artistic medium to convey a point. It was illogical and unethical, but it was persuasive. It was art. It was politics. It was modern society in a nutshell.
None of this relates to Leni "Hitler's Dreamy" R or the the Meryl Streep statement (didn't see it because I am a guy and would rather claw my own eyes.
It was actually not in reference to any argument you put forward at all.-no weiner dogs or guns, differerent poster who always makes it clear he reads a lot of US history. As to non subtle, go read your Goering: "the best way to persuade people is to persuade them without them realizing they are being persuaded" Bad propaganda is unsubtle. The point I was inartfulluly trying to make is that all rhetoric is essentially propaganda. You just agree with it or not, and history will judge you accordingly. Of course, the ideal rhetoric has facts and data to back it up, which should make it more persuasive, but isn't nessicary if one has good camera angles and a catchy theme. Or memes that deplorables glom on to. We don't even need subtlety any more. It is passé.
Tell me this is not out of the Reifenstahl playbook
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/01/09 22:01:30
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
Remember, the concept was that THE STATES chose the President, and the lesiglature. THE STATES were effectively small countries (but bigger than those wussy European countries-come on is Belgium even real? ) with a very limited central government designed to protect us from redcoats, keep thieves away with uniform weights and measures, and keep the states from going to war with each other. I guess two out of three aint bad.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Spinner wrote: I tend to separate celebrities'/artists' work and their political views; Mr. Eastwood did go Old-Man Crazy, but I still love The Man With No Name. Jayne Cobb is great, even if Adam Baldwin's old Twitter account said some fairly unpleasant things about him (I think he deleted it?). Orson Scott Card is...ergh, but Ender's Game is still fun. And so on and so forth.
Of course, that's just my view!
Yep, I couldn't give a rat's ass about what opinion an actor/musician/artist/etc. has. I don't need to insulate myself from opinions that differ from my own because I'm a grown up that doesn't need a safe space to protect me from scary ideas. As long as I enjoy the art of the person in question, I'll happily go a long with it.
My circle of friends is no different.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Spinner wrote: I tend to separate celebrities'/artists' work and their political views; Mr. Eastwood did go Old-Man Crazy, but I still love The Man With No Name. Jayne Cobb is great, even if Adam Baldwin's old Twitter account said some fairly unpleasant things about him (I think he deleted it?). Orson Scott Card is...ergh, but Ender's Game is still fun. And so on and so forth.
Of course, that's just my view!
Yep, I couldn't give a rat's ass about what opinion an actor/musician/artist/etc. has. I don't need to insulate myself from opinions that differ from my own because I'm a grown up that doesn't need a safe space to protect me from scary ideas. As long as I enjoy the art of the person in question, I'll happily go a long with it.
My circle of friends is no different.
That circle of friends point at the end there is insightful to you and your qualities. It is what we need more of, not insularity.
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
But here wa are, Pres Drumpf looming
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.'”
Exactly. The system is a failure, and has been altered far beyond the original intent. Get rid of it, elect the president by direct popular vote.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
Which your statement does the opposite of, but thats ok I guess.
My suggestion to the Democrats is the same statement my Wife makes: Put on your big girl underpants and get to work.
While your tears are sweet the pity party is getting to be just a bit much. You don't see us NeverTrumpers throwing temper tantrums. We are too busy plotting...revenge!
"the best vengeance is...vengeance."
-Genghis Connie.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.
Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...
Exactly. The system is a failure, and has been altered far beyond the original intent. Get rid of it, elect the president by direct popular vote.
Its not been altered. You guys just suck. Quit sucking. You have one year to remember how to not suck before local elections start.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.
Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...
So are you for popular support or not?
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.
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.
Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...
So are you for popular support or not?
I'm for 51 popular votes by states... and the state figures out how to apportion the electors.
If California what's to apportion it by the national popular vote, there's nothing stopping them from doing so.
***Rhetoric is an art form.
Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.
Propaganda can be very subtle. Look at Hollywood.
Touche.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.
Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...
So are you for popular support or not?
I'm for 51 popular votes by states... and the state figures out how to apportion the electors.
If California what's to apportion it by the national popular vote, there's nothing stopping them from doing so.
That was more to the point where you were against popular vote and then using an appeal to popularity (poking fun mostly).
On the whole thing, why? It's been shown time and time again that the electoral college doesn't give the voiceless a voice and what it mostly does is silence others. Why keep it? What is so great about the electoral college versus a popular vote? Why are states more important than people. You've said stuff like "we are a country of states" or "United States of America", but those are half-assed cop-outs. Explain why the electoral college is a good system that is best to represent the American people at the federal level.
Also California is only going more blue. just CA alone will never change anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/09 22:17:37
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.
Aye, the EC isn't even functioning balancing out small vs big states, it's giving a handful of swing states, some big and some small, a totally outsized voice and essentially writing off all the others as irrelevant because they're so far to one side or the other that they're easily predetermined and their EC votes allocated by default. Ohio and Florida matter more than Texas or New York or California, while small states like Hawaii or Wyoming are as irrelevant under the EC than under a straight popular vote (possibly even moreso as their opposition voters get less than 0 attention whereas under a popular vote they'd have value).
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
***Rhetoric is an art form.
Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.
Propaganda can be very subtle. Look at Hollywood.
Touche.
My same point in a twitter nutshell. Does everything have to be in gif format to be understandable now? I thought old people like long boring stories? Or is it just Twitter nutshells you agree with in a passing gut reaction online basis?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/09 22:31:37
***Rhetoric is an art form. Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.
Propaganda can be very subtle. Look at Hollywood.
Touche.
My same point in a twitter nutshell. Does everything have to be in gif format to be understandable now? I thought old people like long boring stories? Or is it just Twitter nutshells you agree with in a passing gut reaction online basis?
No, you were arguing propaganda is art (somehow related to the Merle Streep speech). I was stating that it aint, and would be better discussed in another thread. You youngins just won't listen.
"In Frazzled's house even the budgie is an insane killer who will peck your eyes out," -short writings from the Legend of Frazzled or How I stopped Worrying and Learned To Love the Asylum
For the record I don't even know how to use Twitter. That sounds too much like a bird and urge to load birdshot...rising! BLAM!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/09 22:39:34
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.
If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.
The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.
Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...
So are you for popular support or not?
I'm for 51 popular votes by states... and the state figures out how to apportion the electors.
If California what's to apportion it by the national popular vote, there's nothing stopping them from doing so.
That was more to the point where you were against popular vote and then using an appeal to popularity (poking fun mostly).
On the whole thing, why? It's been shown time and time again that the electoral college doesn't give the voiceless a voice and what it mostly does is silence others. Why keep it? What is so great about the electoral college versus a popular vote? Why are states more important than people. You've said stuff like "we are a country of states" or "United States of America", but those are half-assed cop-outs. Explain why the electoral college is a good system that is best to represent the American people at the federal level.
Also California is only going more blue. just CA alone will never change anything.
Because it's a balance. At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state. If you're a 'states representation' honk, you'll like the EC... if, 'states don't matter' crowd... you'll always hate the EC.
Moreover, the EC system is done so that every part of the United States of America some kind of say over the next executive.
It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action. True, most candidates focuses on swings states... but, swing states changes over time. As close as PA, WI and MI was, hopefully that's a clarion call for both parties to hit the 'get out to vote' strategy as those 3 ends up being the new FL/OH swing states.
Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.
'Tis why I keep banging on that 'National vote is meaningless' drum... we don't know what the outcome would be.
It's not, by any means, a perfect system... there's a lot to be said for dumping the EC in favor for national vote.
But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.
As for CA... they can certainly lead the way for the rest of the states to apportion by popular vote. Nothing is stopping them from leading the charge.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/09 22:39:36
Frazzled wrote: Its not been altered. You guys just suck. Quit sucking. You have one year to remember how to not suck before local elections start.
Of course it has been altered. Perhaps you should read up on US history and the changes that have been made to presidential elections since the ink was dry on the constitution?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Frazzled wrote: Its not been altered. You guys just suck. Quit sucking. You have one year to remember how to not suck before local elections start.
Of course it has been altered. Perhaps you should read up on US history and the changes that have been made to presidential elections since the ink was dry on the constitution?
Its like you can't make a post without insulting another poster. Whatevs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/09 22:42:09
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.
Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...
This was the point of the electoral college: so that even when 62 million people believe that an unqualified charismatic idiot like Trump should be president the elites of society can say "nope, not going to happen" and choose someone who can do a better job. Arguing "BUT LOTS OF PEOPEL VOTED FOR TRUMP" is missing the point entirely.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.
Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...
This was the point of the electoral college: so that even when 62 million people believe that an unqualified charismatic idiot like Trump should be president the elites of society can say "nope, not going to happen" and choose someone who can do a better job. Arguing "BUT LOTS OF PEOPEL VOTED FOR TRUMP" is missing the point entirely.
Honestly though the elites should not be able to choose. The electoral college shouldn't exist, it is fundamentally against the process of democracy. We should work on making the voting populous more educated.
whembly wrote: At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state.
A task it fails miserably at. Most small states have very little power under the electoral college system because they have few electoral votes and one-sided party loyalty. Wyoming, for example, has zero power under the current system. Its few electoral votes are guaranteed to go to the republican candidate, whoever they happen to be, so nobody has any incentive to campaign there or make any promises to Wyoming's citizens. Same thing with Hawaii, but for the democrats. If you want small states to have a meaningful say in presidential elections then you want a direct national popular vote.
It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action.
No it doesn't. It forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider the issues that matter to a handful of voters in key states, while ignoring the rest. If I'm a candidate why should I consider what people in Wyoming or Hawaii care about? One is guaranteed to give its electoral votes to me no matter what I do, while the other is guaranteed to give its electoral votes to my opponent no matter what I do.
Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.
This doesn't really help your case. A higher turnout in California means even more of a majority for Clinton. The "secure" states for Clinton were the big states, while most of Trump's "secure" states were much smaller.
But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.
Only if you continue to ignore the reasons why all of the arguments in favor of it don't actually work.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
) with a very limited central government designed to protect us from redcoats, keep thieves away with uniform weights and measures, and keep the states from going to war with each other. I guess two out of three aint bad.
