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: The electoral college has failed twice in the last five elections to match the popular vote. It does not help that in the two instances this has occurred, it has resulted in quite possibly the least popular and most divisive administrations this nation has seen in recent memory, and losing the popular vote undercut the popular trust in those administrations frm day 1.
Given that the electoral college has also been divorced from its independent "super citizen" / senatorial equivalent role in almost all respects (and instead is allocated on pure majority vote in each state, regardless of the magnitude of the victory, largely cancelling out millions of votes and allowing someone to win election with as little as a quarter of the popular vote),
Hence, my argument to repeal the 17th Admendment.
this dramatically undercuts its role and the public trust in that role. It is difficult to see what sort of check or balance it continues to serve in such light, and largey just instead looks to be another partisan gaming mechanism instead of serving any meaningful balance of power function. It disenfranchises millions of red voters in blue states and millions of blue voters in red states, stands in the way of any third party having any realistic chance, and gives some very small states radically outsized power than they have any real reason to wield.
The sooner the EC goes bye-bye, the better American democracy will be for it.
Quite the opposite. Worked as intended. A majority of States chose the president. See: United STATES. Not NY and CA et al
To give you the idea... consider there are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.
For context...there are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes combined.
For giggles... let's go back to NY state as there are 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) and Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Even though by virtue of being a populous state, they have more representation in Congress than most states.
Large, densely populated cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
Put another way: Hillary Clinton only won a majority of the popular vote in only thirteen states, the fewest of any major-party nominee since Bob Dole in 1996. In other words...Clinton was minority in 37 states. Here’s the map of where she and Trump carried popular majorities:
I get that some of you don't like Trump... but, that's on the quality of his opponent, who was an exceptionally bad candidate, not the EC.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 16:59:18
MajorTom11 wrote: There is an answer to be had here. There is a way to vet gerrymandering scientifically... It's not witchcraft, it's stats. If the dems gerrymandered too, then they should be forced to re-district just like the GOP had to.
To be fair, the Democratis party does do it as well. This is one of the reasons why the SCOTUS ended up hearing two separate cases on the same subject in the same term: a challenge against political gerrymandering in a red state, and a challenge against political gerrymandering in a blue state. That way the ruling won't have the same risk as being tainted as a "Conservative/Liberal court ruling against a Liberal/Conservative state" ruling.
The solutions are available, don't kid yourselves guys, it's the political will to do it that is lacking and nothing else. If data strategy can lead to gerrymandering, then data policy can eliminate it.
I am cautiously optimistic that SCOTUS will force a change, but I'm not holding my breath either.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Frankly, liberals need to drop gun control and be all for personal gun ownership. Namely because gun control has its roots in racism within the Democratic Party. It was originally brought about in an attempt to limit African Americans access to guns, and went hand in hand with other attempts to limit their ability to vote and attend “white” schools. Democrats need to stop being hippocrits on this, as the party that allegedly champions personal rights and freedom.
What I would do is tie expansion of gun rights to healthcare. Give conservatives what they want with guns in exchange for what liberals want with healthcare. No restrictions on private ownership of weaponry of any kind(abolish all state laws regarding restricted weapons), no limits on open carry(abolish all state laws restricting this), a national CCW program, and a national background check system which operates by pooling all felony convictions and mental institution databases. Also it should contain methods to remove individuals from the “no buy” list via an appeals process. In exchange, we could create basically a government health insurance option paid for by all tax payers that would be have to be accepted at any health provider. It would only provide a minimal level of coverage however so private providers would still be superior. The cost for this could be collected via tax returns based on number of dependents and would be a flat per person rate. No exemptions for Income either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 17:03:13
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Vaktathi wrote: The electoral college has failed twice in the last five elections to match the popular vote. It does not help that in the two instances this has occurred, it has resulted in quite possibly the least popular and most divisive administrations this nation has seen in recent memory, and losing the popular vote undercut the popular trust in those administrations frm day 1.
Given that the electoral college has also been divorced from its independent "super citizen" / senatorial equivalent role in almost all respects (and instead is allocated on pure majority vote in each state, regardless of the magnitude of the victory, largely cancelling out millions of votes and allowing someone to win election with as little as a quarter of the popular vote), this dramatically undercuts its role and the public trust in that role. It is difficult to see what sort of check or balance it continues to serve in such light, and largey just instead looks to be another partisan gaming mechanism instead of serving any meaningful balance of power function. It disenfranchises millions of red voters in blue states and millions of blue voters in red states, stands in the way of any third party having any realistic chance, and gives some very small states radically outsized power than they have any real reason to wield.
The sooner the EC goes bye-bye, the better American democracy will be for it.
I don't know that the EC has to go, but it could does need to be improved by the individual states. I think even changing the voting mechanism to more closely match the mechanism by which the number of electors is determined would be a major improvement. Instate of having a statewide vote for all electors, assign electoral votes to each district with two electors chosen by the statewide vote. I don't have the time (and honestly I don't think I really have the desire either) to see how past elections would have turned out if electors were chosen that way, but it could only be an improvement. The other approach would be to assign electors proportionally to the total statewide vote.
The "by district" approach wouldn't have changed any of the Electoral votes in Oklahoma, but the proportional vote would have. I vote against the grain in Oklahoma, so I would have benefited from a proportional selection, but I still prefer the "by district" approach better I think.
Without queation there are lots of better alternative ways of doing the EC than what we do now, but the fundamental question remains...why have an EC? The president is a national office elected to represent the nation as a whole, why not have a single nation-wide vote? Splitting that up into smaller elements simply allows additional partisan and geographic gimmickry and the chance for a nonrepresentational result.
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.
Vaktathi wrote: The electoral college has failed twice in the last five elections to match the popular vote. It does not help that in the two instances this has occurred, it has resulted in quite possibly the least popular and most divisive administrations this nation has seen in recent memory, and losing the popular vote undercut the popular trust in those administrations frm day 1.
Given that the electoral college has also been divorced from its independent "super citizen" / senatorial equivalent role in almost all respects (and instead is allocated on pure majority vote in each state, regardless of the magnitude of the victory, largely cancelling out millions of votes and allowing someone to win election with as little as a quarter of the popular vote),
Hence, my argument to repeal the 17th Admendment.
this dramatically undercuts its role and the public trust in that role. It is difficult to see what sort of check or balance it continues to serve in such light, and largey just instead looks to be another partisan gaming mechanism instead of serving any meaningful balance of power function. It disenfranchises millions of red voters in blue states and millions of blue voters in red states, stands in the way of any third party having any realistic chance, and gives some very small states radically outsized power than they have any real reason to wield.
The sooner the EC goes bye-bye, the better American democracy will be for it.
Quite the opposite. Worked as intended. A majority of States chose the president. See: United STATES. Not NY and CA et al
To give you the idea... consider there are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Without queation there are lots of better alternative ways of doing the EC than what we do now, but the fundamental question remains...why have an EC? The president is a national office elected to represent the nation as a whole, why not have a single nation-wide vote? Splitting that up into smaller elements simply allows additional partisan and geographic gimmickry and the chance for a nonrepresentational result.
Because the Constitution states that 538 people are allowed to vote for President, and states are able to pick those 538 people in any way they want.
You, I, or anyone else has ZERO constitution right to pick our POTUS. We hold our constitution sacred, but there is some amazingly stupid stuff in it as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 17:05:22
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Sure it does, because the Senators are already representatives for their respective State. The President's job isn't to be representative of any one State.
The fact that it's the States that elect the President is irrelevant, the point still stands: the Electoral congress effectively discriminates citizens in more popolous states.
Proportional representation on a State level could work as a compromise; you wouldn't make people's votes worthless and the smaller states would retain their advantage.
No it doesn't. California has more than 18 times as many Electoral votes as Wyoming (55 vs 3) that's the same representation those states get in Congress. What compelling reason is there for California residents to have a greater impact on the Executive branch of the Federal govt than they do on the Legislative branch? Equal representation in both branches of government isn't discriminatory.
In Quebec, we have a system much akin to the US electoral college. It has been used by nationalists and separatists to essentially put the boonie minority in charge of the province. People who rarely if ever encounter minorities like English speakers and people of color, but who are told they are under threat from these 'others' by their nationalist party. They have no direct experience really, it is entirely a world view based on propaganda. (Sound familiar, to quote Trump just today, country is being stolen, dems are trying to dismantle our (whatever our means) way of life etc etc.
Here's the thing, I'm on the other end of this. I am an English speaking white male in Quebec. That, unlike anywhere else in North America, makes me an undesirable minority that must be assimilated entirely or never be considered a Quebecer, even being born here. I have heard my whole life from the govt how I am a problem, that I am responsible for hollywood, music and cultural invasion, and my language is offensive in a lot of this province. As far as Quebec at large is concerned, I might as well be wearing a hijab.
Ok, so besides the obvious, this is what is pissing me off. The mixed, more tolerant 'progressive' parts of this province, mostly Montreal itself, drive 60-70% of Business in the entire province. We pay the lion's share of taxes. Yet despite this, we are subject to the will of people who don't live in our reality whatsoever and want to govern based on fear and ignorance. They take our money happily enough, but they don't want to let us be equal. They think being a Quebecer means being a Francophone that's been here several generations... there is even a name for it, 'Pure-leine' - which means pure wool.
So even though the majority of this province doesn't want to seperate, and a significant portion of it's biggest city, and it's biggest economic engine, wants bilingualism and to let the society make progress instead of being locked into the 1960's forever, we have been shackled to the minority for decades. It has hurt us, socially and economically. It has divided us. It makes business difficult, because you can't simply succeed, that's not good enough to just have a viable business, you have to do it their way (in french) or get out.
Any of this sound familiar to you down there?
I have gotten to watch the results of gerrymandering, fear of the other politics my entire life. I have been the native minority that is told they are doing wrong even while they suceed. I am not antifrench at all. I speak french. I identify more with a Quebecer than I ever would with a british colombian, or a new brunswicker. I love so much about the french culture here. But unless I can fool someone into thinking my family has been here generations, it's not good enough. If they (they being the self-identified nationalist/seperatists) detect an accent, even if my french is otherwise perfect, it is offensive and not good enough.
The amount of businesses that left Quebec because of this is staggering. The amount of brain power that migrated out of here is staggering. There is a reason Toronto became the most powerful city in the last 50 years, it's because montreal went there to do business. We lost so much, and are still losing, because due to the exodus, due to the badly run government that never focused on improving anything if it was perceived to cost anything to french culture instead of doing things to help business thrive, to attract ip and brain power, taxes went up, cost of doing business went up.
We are only now barely crawling out of it into viable growth, but for the longest time, we were the definition of a nanny state with bloated bureaucracy and poor policy.
At the time, everyone here was like 'ya ya, let them go, we will make our shining city ourselves, the way we want, we won't mix our cultures, we will be supreme'. It didn't work. The world moved on without us. We were left behind and too proud to change or ask for help.
If it were not for the culture clash here leading to nationalism and seperatism, strict language laws and resultant terrible tax rates, I am 100% convinced Quebec, and Montreal, would still reign supreme in Canada as they did prior to 1960. We did this to ourselves. In the name of protecting our culture against the other. In the name of pride.
What I see happening down there makes me scared for you guys, not because I hate you, because I know where this road leads and anyone telling themselves what is happening now is going to be good for the US for any meaningful duration is delusional in the worst way. Doing wrong while being so convinced you are right with a complete inability to see what is sitting right in front of you... yeah.
Here's another thing that should ring familiar, even when federalist govt's are elected here (it goes back and forth just as it does with you guys), they won't touch the subject of minority rights or bilingualism. Why? For much the same reason that the Democrats avoid guns. The French Cultural lobby here is so strong, is such a hot-button issue, that those who would otherwise address the problems abstain out of terror of mobilizing every single last person with even mild seperatist leanings like an army, because much like the NRA and guns, they have convinced the self-identified population that any concession, and discussion, is tantamount to throwing everything away. French cultural supremacy is Quebec's second amendment. You can't even debate it with any hope of agreement on facts or intent to compromise. It is equivalent to questioning a religious person's faith, you just don't do it, and if you do, get ready to throw down.
This is a great post. I can't even add anything to this.
On a pleasant note, I work with a lot of Quebecois out of province (they make up a disproportionate amount of our military) and the majority of them who have spent time outside of Quebec all agree how ridiculous a lot of Quebec policies are.
That said, I'd kill for those university tuition rates or childcare costs.
Thanks dude. I know tons of awesome francophones whom I love. I have to stress that the 'Problem' Quebecer I speak of is self-identifying, and the minority. Quebec is an awesome place, and the thing that pisses me off the most is that because of the Xenophobia of a few, they act like the great, beautiful parts need to be horded and protected, not shared and shown off. I see a lot of that in the states now... wheras when I was young, I loved the states because they showed their best to the world and said anyone, anyone, could be part of their dream if they loved it too. That was something.
Tuition fees are stunningly good, and honestly should have gone up. Daycare pretty damn sweet too. But don't forget, in exchange for that though, we have the worst medical system in the western world (average 18-36 hour waits in emergency rooms!), highest taxes in north america (I pay 50% or close enough in taxes on my pay cheque), we have ridiculous laws that serve no purpose but to make business difficult in the name of french (bill 101), our infrastructure is pretty disastrous... Trust me, I would ditch the cheap hydro, uni and daycare in exchange for lower income tax, sales tax and unrestricted access to business. In fact, I am, hence the move to California
Thanks for taking the time to read, one stunning thing about this whole situation in Quebec is that very few are familiar of just what happens here, Canada keeps it quiet, the minorities here are a statistically irrelevant cohort for both federal and provincial elections, no one will ever take a stand for us. 1 million anglo and allophones, swept under the rug for 50 years or more. When I tell people in the US we have laws here forbidding english signage and keyboards etc etc, they think I am joking or exaggerating heavily. Pretty effed up when you think about it, an epic gaslighting.
Vaktathi wrote: The electoral college has failed twice in the last five elections to match the popular vote. It does not help that in the two instances this has occurred, it has resulted in quite possibly the least popular and most divisive administrations this nation has seen in recent memory, and losing the popular vote undercut the popular trust in those administrations frm day 1.
Given that the electoral college has also been divorced from its independent "super citizen" / senatorial equivalent role in almost all respects (and instead is allocated on pure majority vote in each state, regardless of the magnitude of the victory, largely cancelling out millions of votes and allowing someone to win election with as little as a quarter of the popular vote), this dramatically undercuts its role and the public trust in that role. It is difficult to see what sort of check or balance it continues to serve in such light, and largey just instead looks to be another partisan gaming mechanism instead of serving any meaningful balance of power function. It disenfranchises millions of red voters in blue states and millions of blue voters in red states, stands in the way of any third party having any realistic chance, and gives some very small states radically outsized power than they have any real reason to wield.
The sooner the EC goes bye-bye, the better American democracy will be for it.
I don't know that the EC has to go, but it could does need to be improved by the individual states. I think even changing the voting mechanism to more closely match the mechanism by which the number of electors is determined would be a major improvement. Instate of having a statewide vote for all electors, assign electoral votes to each district with two electors chosen by the statewide vote. I don't have the time (and honestly I don't think I really have the desire either) to see how past elections would have turned out if electors were chosen that way, but it could only be an improvement. The other approach would be to assign electors proportionally to the total statewide vote.
The "by district" approach wouldn't have changed any of the Electoral votes in Oklahoma, but the proportional vote would have. I vote against the grain in Oklahoma, so I would have benefited from a proportional selection, but I still prefer the "by district" approach better I think.
Without queation there are lots of better alternative ways of doing the EC than what we do now, but the fundamental question remains...why have an EC? The president is a national office elected to represent the nation as a whole, why not have a single nation-wide vote? Splitting that up into smaller elements simply allows additional partisan and geographic gimmickry and the chance for a nonrepresentational result.
Why have states at all then? We're all US residents/citizens why divide the country up into small semi autonomous states instead of having just one big state for everyone?
No it doesn't. California has more than 18 times as many Electoral votes as Wyoming (55 vs 3) that's the same representation those states get in Congress. What compelling reason is there for California residents to have a greater impact on the Executive branch of the Federal govt than they do on the Legislative branch? Equal representation in both branches of government isn't discriminatory.
Without an Electoral College, residents in California would have the same impact on the Executive branch as the voters in Wyoming. Why should a vote matter less, because the person voting lives where there are more voters?
The legislative branch and the executive branch have two different purposes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 17:12:40
MajorTom11 wrote: There is an answer to be had here. There is a way to vet gerrymandering scientifically... It's not witchcraft, it's stats. If the dems gerrymandered too, then they should be forced to re-district just like the GOP had to.
To be fair, the Democratis party does do it as well. This is one of the reasons why the SCOTUS ended up hearing two separate cases on the same subject in the same term: a challenge against political gerrymandering in a red state, and a challenge against political gerrymandering in a blue state. That way the ruling won't have the same risk as being tainted as a "Conservative/Liberal court ruling against a Liberal/Conservative state" ruling.
The solutions are available, don't kid yourselves guys, it's the political will to do it that is lacking and nothing else. If data strategy can lead to gerrymandering, then data policy can eliminate it.
I am cautiously optimistic that SCOTUS will force a change, but I'm not holding my breath either.
Exactly why I say a single standard of scientifically determined statistics, algorithmically derived, should be applied to all. Dems, Reps, whatever. The system, or complete lack of one, is the issue here, and it is an issue because we absolutely have the know-how and data to implement it really effing fast. Like I said, political will to enact the solution is the issue, not finding a solution.
Why have states at all then? We're all US residents/citizens why divide the country up into small semi autonomous states instead of having just one big state for everyone?
Why have a discussion, why not just have hyperbole instead?
MajorTom11 wrote: There is an answer to be had here. There is a way to vet gerrymandering scientifically... It's not witchcraft, it's stats. If the dems gerrymandered too, then they should be forced to re-district just like the GOP had to.
To be fair, the Democratis party does do it as well. This is one of the reasons why the SCOTUS ended up hearing two separate cases on the same subject in the same term: a challenge against political gerrymandering in a red state, and a challenge against political gerrymandering in a blue state. That way the ruling won't have the same risk as being tainted as a "Conservative/Liberal court ruling against a Liberal/Conservative state" ruling.
The solutions are available, don't kid yourselves guys, it's the political will to do it that is lacking and nothing else. If data strategy can lead to gerrymandering, then data policy can eliminate it.
I am cautiously optimistic that SCOTUS will force a change, but I'm not holding my breath either.
Exactly why I say a single standard of scientifically determined statistics, algorithmically derived, should be applied to all. Dems, Reps, whatever. The system, or complete lack of one, is the issue here, and it is an issue because we absolutely have the know-how and data to implement it really effing fast. Like I said, political will to enact the solution is the issue, not finding a solution.
Very true. The current question before SCOTUS will determine if they accept a "scientific" approach to measure the partisan impact on gerrymanders, and if they do I hope it will lead to states to utilize that same measure while drawing district lines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 17:11:32
Gerrymandering should be a federal issue, with controls and standards universally applied if you ask me. This is one of those cases where if it doesn't apply to everyone, it's pointless, so federal imho.
Well that's the thing, lots of Americans agree we need change, everyone is just divided on how we need to do it. I know people all across the political spectrum and if you cut out specific views on things like gun control, abortion, etc. they all start to sound very similar. Lots of people don't trust the established government, lots of people feel they are being screwed by the system, lots of people want things to change.
It's part of why Obama won and part of why Trump won. Both promised to be something different to the status quo. It didn't matter that they may have made promises they wouldn't keep, or even if their views didn't really match up with the voter's that well, they were a chance to have things change. In both situations their opponents represented the "status quo", essentially a vote for the government to stay as it is. Race and Gender don't really play into that as much as we saw with Clinton, the big thing is the supposed policy changes that may result. And say what you will about Hillary, she absolutely did not represent change in the eyes of most voter's, other than the potential to be the first female president. And since lots of Americans vastly overestimate the power the president has, many assume that's the main place that vote matters. So they went with the candidate who represented change and figured it couldn't be worse than the alternative they already knew.
If the Dems go with an established candidate next election, they will lose. Doesn't matter if it's Clinton or pelosi or whatever, it's just another case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" in the public's eyes If the Dems want to win they need new blood. They're in the same position as the Republicans, many of their higher ups are seen as crooked and untrustworthy by more centrist and independent voter's. Picking one if them means you're doubling down on your party faithfuls and praying that carries the day, which at this point is pretty much proven to be a losing strategy.
Of course there's a lot of changes that need to be done regardless of which way you lean to make for a healthier government. We desperately need better education to encourage coming of age voter's to research their parties and question their leader's actions. We desperately need new blood and perhaps even term limits on senators and other positions. Funding and cronyism needs major attention. Radicalization of both sides is derailing almost any hope of cross party cooperation and has turned politics into a taboo conversation topic in almost all areas of life.
Of course, it's easy to point out the flaws, the issue is agreeing on a solution, and no matter what you pick it will not be easy. As sad as it sounds, I was almost happy Trump won. We really need the system to show how truly broken it is to facilitate proper change, and Trump is a major tipping point in showing just how many problems lurk below the surface to the general public. I don't think he's going to singlehandedly tick off the public to the point of a second revolution or anything, but if we get a couple of more "Trump" moments it could be what the American public needs to finally get motivated and give a gak about politics.
For full disclosure, I voted for Gary Johnson as I knew any vote other than Trump was completely wasted in Kentucky. I voted for Gary purely as an attempt to show that there was support for 3rd parties in the government, especially since it couldn't hurt anything. Gary Johnson matched up with more of my views and even though he appears to be absolutely insane sometimes, at least for once I got to vote for someone rather than against someone.
Which is honestly the most damning thing about USA politics. Voting against someone for president is probably more common than voting for someone for president. When a supposedly democratic country of 300 million people can only produce 2 choices, and you feel you must go with the lesser of two evils, something is wrong.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
Vaktathi wrote: The electoral college has failed twice in the last five elections to match the popular vote. It does not help that in the two instances this has occurred, it has resulted in quite possibly the least popular and most divisive administrations this nation has seen in recent memory, and losing the popular vote undercut the popular trust in those administrations frm day 1.
Given that the electoral college has also been divorced from its independent "super citizen" / senatorial equivalent role in almost all respects (and instead is allocated on pure majority vote in each state, regardless of the magnitude of the victory, largely cancelling out millions of votes and allowing someone to win election with as little as a quarter of the popular vote),
Hence, my argument to repeal the 17th Admendment.
this dramatically undercuts its role and the public trust in that role. It is difficult to see what sort of check or balance it continues to serve in such light, and largey just instead looks to be another partisan gaming mechanism instead of serving any meaningful balance of power function. It disenfranchises millions of red voters in blue states and millions of blue voters in red states, stands in the way of any third party having any realistic chance, and gives some very small states radically outsized power than they have any real reason to wield.
The sooner the EC goes bye-bye, the better American democracy will be for it.
Quite the opposite. Worked as intended. A majority of States chose the president. See: United STATES. Not NY and CA et al
To give you the idea... consider there are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Without queation there are lots of better alternative ways of doing the EC than what we do now, but the fundamental question remains...why have an EC? The president is a national office elected to represent the nation as a whole, why not have a single nation-wide vote? Splitting that up into smaller elements simply allows additional partisan and geographic gimmickry and the chance for a nonrepresentational result.
Because the Constitution states that 538 people are allowed to vote for President, and states are able to pick those 538 people in any way they want.
You, I, or anyone else has ZERO constitution right to pick our POTUS. We hold our constitution sacred, but there is some amazingly stupid stuff in it as well.
Maine and Nebraska award their Electoral College electors/votes on a proportional basis, more states could do the same if their state govt chose to do so.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 and the SCotUS case of Wood v Broom are what really messed up the Electoral College because those events opened to door for widespread Gerrymandering and Party control of the election process while setting an arbitrary limit on the House of Representatives which made it impossible to standardize the population size of congressional districts.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 (ch. 28, 46 Stat. 21, 2 U.S.C. § 2a) was a combined census and apportionment bill passed by the United States Congress on June 18, 1929, that established a permanent method for apportioning a constant 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives according to each census. The bill neither repealed nor restated the requirements of the previous apportionment acts that districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated.
It was not clear whether these requirements were still in effect until in 1932 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Wood v. Broom[1] that the provisions of each apportionment act affected only the apportionment for which they were written. Thus the size and population requirements, last stated in the Apportionment Act of 1911, expired immediately with the enactment of the subsequent Apportionment Act.
The Act of 1929 gave little direction concerning congressional redistricting. It merely established a system in which House seats would be reallocated to states which have shifts in population. The lack of recommendations concerning districts had several significant effects.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 allowed states to draw districts of varying size and shape. It also allowed states to abandon districts altogether and elect at least some representatives at large, which several states chose to do, including New York, Illinois, Washington, Hawaii, and New Mexico. For example, in the 88th Congress (in the early 1960s) 22 of the 435 representatives were elected at-large.
No particular apportionment method was used during the period 1850 to 1890, but from 1890 through 1910, the increasing membership of the House was calculated in such a way as to ensure that no state lost a seat due to shifts in apportionment population.[5] In 1881, a provision for equally populated contiguous and compact single member districts was added to the reapportionment law, and this was echoed in all decennial reapportionment acts through to 1911.[7]
Then, in 1920, the Republicans removed the Democrats from power as the Whigs had done in 1838, taking the presidency and both houses of Congress. Due to increased immigration and a large rural-to-urban shift in population from 1910 to 1920, the new Republican Congress refused to reapportion the House of Representatives with the traditional contiguous, single-member districts stipulations because such a reapportionment would have redistricted many House members out of their districts.[8][9] A reapportionment in 1921 in the traditional fashion would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats, but many members would have lost their seats due to the population shifts, and the House chamber did not have adequate seats for 483 members. The Reapportionment act of 1929 did away with any mention of districts at all. This provided a solution to the problem of threatened incumbents by allowing the political parties in control of the state legislatures to draw districting lines at will and to elect some or all representatives at large.
No it doesn't. California has more than 18 times as many Electoral votes as Wyoming (55 vs 3) that's the same representation those states get in Congress. What compelling reason is there for California residents to have a greater impact on the Executive branch of the Federal govt than they do on the Legislative branch? Equal representation in both branches of government isn't discriminatory.
Without an Electoral College, residents in California would have the same impact on the Executive branch as the voters in Wyoming. Why should a vote matter less, because the person voting lives where there are more voters?
The legislative branch and the executive branch have two different purposes.
The States have the same responsibility in election candidates to the Legislative and Executive branches so how do you remove States from one election and not the other?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 17:20:42
MajorTom11 wrote: Gerrymandering should be a federal issue, with controls and standards universally applied if you ask me. This is one of those cases where if it doesn't apply to everyone, it's pointless, so federal imho.
Very much agreed in this regards.
Would have to be directed by SCOTUS somehow as it'll be neigh impossible to get Congress to pass something...as those state representative wants this power to maximize their incumbancies (sp?).
Why have states at all then? We're all US residents/citizens why divide the country up into small semi autonomous states instead of having just one big state for everyone?
Why have a discussion, why not just have hyperbole instead?
MajorTom11 wrote: There is an answer to be had here. There is a way to vet gerrymandering scientifically... It's not witchcraft, it's stats. If the dems gerrymandered too, then they should be forced to re-district just like the GOP had to.
To be fair, the Democratis party does do it as well. This is one of the reasons why the SCOTUS ended up hearing two separate cases on the same subject in the same term: a challenge against political gerrymandering in a red state, and a challenge against political gerrymandering in a blue state. That way the ruling won't have the same risk as being tainted as a "Conservative/Liberal court ruling against a Liberal/Conservative state" ruling.
The solutions are available, don't kid yourselves guys, it's the political will to do it that is lacking and nothing else. If data strategy can lead to gerrymandering, then data policy can eliminate it.
I am cautiously optimistic that SCOTUS will force a change, but I'm not holding my breath either.
Exactly why I say a single standard of scientifically determined statistics, algorithmically derived, should be applied to all. Dems, Reps, whatever. The system, or complete lack of one, is the issue here, and it is an issue because we absolutely have the know-how and data to implement it really effing fast. Like I said, political will to enact the solution is the issue, not finding a solution.
Very true. The current question before SCOTUS will determine if they accept a "scientific" approach to measure the partisan impact on gerrymanders, and if they do I hope it will lead to states to utilize that same measure while drawing district lines.
SCotUS can't stop Gerrymandering. The court can decide that State legislatures have acted unconstitutionally in drawing a given set of congressional districts but SCotUS cannot create Federal law governing apportionment of districts. Congress needs to pass a law that sets a given apportionment standard and if that law is challenged then SCotUS can determine it's constitutionality.
The sad fact, shown to be true throughout our history, is that the current incumbent politicians and Parties do not wish to pass any legislation that reduces their current power so we continue to be plagued with gerrymandering because neither Party, when in power, has the will do act for the sake of the people and the betterment of our election process if it will hurt themselves in the short term.
The States have the same responsibility in election candidates to the Legislative and Executive branches so how do you remove States from one election and not the other?
By writing a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college, that's how?
I think we have a stupid system to pick our President.
I also think that we currently run our country as if we had a parliamentary system and our POTUS is the Prime Minister whenever the White House and Congress share the same party, and that it is stupid to do it that way when we have a constitution that is based on a non-parliamentary system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 17:27:58
In Quebec, we have a system much akin to the US electoral college. It has been used by nationalists and separatists to essentially put the boonie minority in charge of the province. People who rarely if ever encounter minorities like English speakers and people of color, but who are told they are under threat from these 'others' by their nationalist party. They have no direct experience really, it is entirely a world view based on propaganda. (Sound familiar, to quote Trump just today, country is being stolen, dems are trying to dismantle our (whatever our means) way of life etc etc.
Here's the thing, I'm on the other end of this. I am an English speaking white male in Quebec. That, unlike anywhere else in North America, makes me an undesirable minority that must be assimilated entirely or never be considered a Quebecer, even being born here. I have heard my whole life from the govt how I am a problem, that I am responsible for hollywood, music and cultural invasion, and my language is offensive in a lot of this province. As far as Quebec at large is concerned, I might as well be wearing a hijab.
Ok, so besides the obvious, this is what is pissing me off. The mixed, more tolerant 'progressive' parts of this province, mostly Montreal itself, drive 60-70% of Business in the entire province. We pay the lion's share of taxes. Yet despite this, we are subject to the will of people who don't live in our reality whatsoever and want to govern based on fear and ignorance. They take our money happily enough, but they don't want to let us be equal. They think being a Quebecer means being a Francophone that's been here several generations... there is even a name for it, 'Pure-leine' - which means pure wool.
So even though the majority of this province doesn't want to seperate, and a significant portion of it's biggest city, and it's biggest economic engine, wants bilingualism and to let the society make progress instead of being locked into the 1960's forever, we have been shackled to the minority for decades. It has hurt us, socially and economically. It has divided us. It makes business difficult, because you can't simply succeed, that's not good enough to just have a viable business, you have to do it their way (in french) or get out.
Any of this sound familiar to you down there?
I have gotten to watch the results of gerrymandering, fear of the other politics my entire life. I have been the native minority that is told they are doing wrong even while they suceed. I am not antifrench at all. I speak french. I identify more with a Quebecer than I ever would with a british colombian, or a new brunswicker. I love so much about the french culture here. But unless I can fool someone into thinking my family has been here generations, it's not good enough. If they (they being the self-identified nationalist/seperatists) detect an accent, even if my french is otherwise perfect, it is offensive and not good enough.
The amount of businesses that left Quebec because of this is staggering. The amount of brain power that migrated out of here is staggering. There is a reason Toronto became the most powerful city in the last 50 years, it's because montreal went there to do business. We lost so much, and are still losing, because due to the exodus, due to the badly run government that never focused on improving anything if it was perceived to cost anything to french culture instead of doing things to help business thrive, to attract ip and brain power, taxes went up, cost of doing business went up.
We are only now barely crawling out of it into viable growth, but for the longest time, we were the definition of a nanny state with bloated bureaucracy and poor policy.
At the time, everyone here was like 'ya ya, let them go, we will make our shining city ourselves, the way we want, we won't mix our cultures, we will be supreme'. It didn't work. The world moved on without us. We were left behind and too proud to change or ask for help.
If it were not for the culture clash here leading to nationalism and seperatism, strict language laws and resultant terrible tax rates, I am 100% convinced Quebec, and Montreal, would still reign supreme in Canada as they did prior to 1960. We did this to ourselves. In the name of protecting our culture against the other. In the name of pride.
What I see happening down there makes me scared for you guys, not because I hate you, because I know where this road leads and anyone telling themselves what is happening now is going to be good for the US for any meaningful duration is delusional in the worst way. Doing wrong while being so convinced you are right with a complete inability to see what is sitting right in front of you... yeah.
Here's another thing that should ring familiar, even when federalist govt's are elected here (it goes back and forth just as it does with you guys), they won't touch the subject of minority rights or bilingualism. Why? For much the same reason that the Democrats avoid guns. The French Cultural lobby here is so strong, is such a hot-button issue, that those who would otherwise address the problems abstain out of terror of mobilizing every single last person with even mild seperatist leanings like an army, because much like the NRA and guns, they have convinced the self-identified population that any concession, and discussion, is tantamount to throwing everything away. French cultural supremacy is Quebec's second amendment. You can't even debate it with any hope of agreement on facts or intent to compromise. It is equivalent to questioning a religious person's faith, you just don't do it, and if you do, get ready to throw down.
This is a great post. I can't even add anything to this.
On a pleasant note, I work with a lot of Quebecois out of province (they make up a disproportionate amount of our military) and the majority of them who have spent time outside of Quebec all agree how ridiculous a lot of Quebec policies are.
That said, I'd kill for those university tuition rates or childcare costs.
Thanks dude. I know tons of awesome francophones whom I love. I have to stress that the 'Problem' Quebecer I speak of is self-identifying, and the minority. Quebec is an awesome place, and the thing that pisses me off the most is that because of the Xenophobia of a few, they act like the great, beautiful parts need to be horded and protected, not shared and shown off. I see a lot of that in the states now... wheras when I was young, I loved the states because they showed their best to the world and said anyone, anyone, could be part of their dream if they loved it too. That was something.
Tuition fees are stunningly good, and honestly should have gone up. Daycare pretty damn sweet too. But don't forget, in exchange for that though, we have the worst medical system in the western world (average 18-36 hour waits in emergency rooms!), highest taxes in north america (I pay 50% or close enough in taxes on my pay cheque), we have ridiculous laws that serve no purpose but to make business difficult in the name of french (bill 101), our infrastructure is pretty disastrous... Trust me, I would ditch the cheap hydro, uni and daycare in exchange for lower income tax, sales tax and unrestricted access to business. In fact, I am, hence the move to California
Thanks for taking the time to read, one stunning thing about this whole situation in Quebec is that very few are familiar of just what happens here, Canada keeps it quiet, the minorities here are a statistically irrelevant cohort for both federal and provincial elections, no one will ever take a stand for us. 1 million anglo and allophones, swept under the rug for 50 years or more. When I tell people in the US we have laws here forbidding english signage and keyboards etc etc, they think I am joking or exaggerating heavily. Pretty effed up when you think about it, an epic gaslighting.
Oh I know the 'problem' Quebecois is a distinct minority, seems to be the trend these days with vocal fringes. I have yet to have the pleasure of living in Quebec (outside of ~6 months in a giant building), but I've snowboarded most of the notable hills, and it is a stunning province all around. Fortunately, Montreal still seems to hold on to some reputation as a welcoming bastion, though I don't know ultimately how true that is I haven't been there in years.
I never bothered to check the Quebec tax rates (mostly because they're never published with every other province, gotta go to the Quebec page for that, of course), and holy gak, I'm floored. I thought NS was the highest, but you have me beat by nearly 5% in the top bracket! Still, I'm fairly left leaning, so I'd gladly sacrifice ~5% of my total income for cheap daycare for all, and cheaper tuition, among other things. The cultural bills and business restrictions are definitely a waste of tax dollars though. While the infrastructure is old, it seems to be a trend nationwide. I know that Toronto is going through its share of troubles too. That said, the new Hwy 30 bypass on the south shore is one of the single greatest additions to the Canadian highway network of all time.
Yeah, the pushback against English and the Anglophones will go down as a failure in history when we look back, hopefully. Its certainly not doing the province any good. Shame really.
Thanks for the perspective though, always good to hear an inside opinion about local politics I'm not swept up on.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
SCotUS can't stop Gerrymandering. The court can decide that State legislatures have acted unconstitutionally in drawing a given set of congressional districts but SCotUS cannot create Federal law governing apportionment of districts. Congress needs to pass a law that sets a given apportionment standard and if that law is challenged then SCotUS can determine it's constitutionality.
They can stop it if they set a precedent that can be consistently applied. They managed to stop (for the most part) racial gerrymanders by setting a standard in court, but they have not found partisan gerrymanders unconstitutional. If SCOTUS says "this is the way we determine a partisan gerrymander", then they have set a standard for states to follow.
The sad fact, shown to be true throughout our history, is that the current incumbent politicians and Parties do not wish to pass any legislation that reduces their current power so we continue to be plagued with gerrymandering because neither Party, when in power, has the will do act for the sake of the people and the betterment of our election process if it will hurt themselves in the short term.
And that's the core of the issue. Our two-party system has basically resulted in a national Prisoner's Dilema.
SCotUS can't stop Gerrymandering. The court can decide that State legislatures have acted unconstitutionally in drawing a given set of congressional districts but SCotUS cannot create Federal law governing apportionment of districts. Congress needs to pass a law that sets a given apportionment standard and if that law is challenged then SCotUS can determine it's constitutionality.
They can stop it if they set a precedent that can be consistently applied. They managed to stop (for the most part) racial gerrymanders by setting a standard in court, but they have not found partisan gerrymanders unconstitutional. If SCOTUS says "this is the way we determine a partisan gerrymander", then they have set a standard for states to follow.
I think D-usa has the right of it here, SCOTUS can't write novel, independent law, but they can refine and modify existing law. Gerrymandering is covered, thus as Marcus says, Scotus merely has to set a standard about how to determine if the law or policy is being applied correctly and the rest falls into place from there. May be mistaken but that would be my understanding as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ideally though, yes, a congressional law explicitly made would be best.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/02 17:44:17
I think D-usa has the right of it here, SCOTUS can't write novel, independent law, but they can refine and modify existing law. Gerrymandering is covered, thus as Marcus says, Scotus merely has to set a standard about how to determine if the law or policy is being applied correctly and the rest falls into place from there. May be mistaken but that would be my understanding as well.
Exactly.
The problem with the partisan gerrymandering is that it just has been hard to apply existing laws to the problem. The 14th Amendment is fairly easy to apply when it comes to "obvious" things, like how race impacts cracking and packing. That makes it easier to apply a ruling that is based on the population that is impacted. One of the sticking points in a previous gerrymander ruling was that we didn't have a way to objectively measure how "partisan" a gerrymander was, and that the court wasn't comfortable making a ruling that would be based on subjective findings. The current case argues that they found an objective way of measuring the partisan impact, so we'll see how it turns out.
SCotUS can't stop Gerrymandering. The court can decide that State legislatures have acted unconstitutionally in drawing a given set of congressional districts but SCotUS cannot create Federal law governing apportionment of districts. Congress needs to pass a law that sets a given apportionment standard and if that law is challenged then SCotUS can determine it's constitutionality.
They can stop it if they set a precedent that can be consistently applied. They managed to stop (for the most part) racial gerrymanders by setting a standard in court, but they have not found partisan gerrymanders unconstitutional. If SCOTUS says "this is the way we determine a partisan gerrymander", then they have set a standard for states to follow.
The sad fact, shown to be true throughout our history, is that the current incumbent politicians and Parties do not wish to pass any legislation that reduces their current power so we continue to be plagued with gerrymandering because neither Party, when in power, has the will do act for the sake of the people and the betterment of our election process if it will hurt themselves in the short term.
And that's the core of the issue. Our two-party system has basically resulted in a national Prisoner's Dilema.
As long as the Federal apportionment laws on the books are deliberately vague and malleable SCotUS won't be able to give a clear roadmap for constitutional redistricting. Truly egregious abuses of the apportionment laws can be challenged in court and appealed up to SCotUS and if they choose to hear the case SCotUS can rule that such egregious abuses are unconstitutional but that won't stop a state legislature from trying to gerrymander in a slightly less egregious and therefore legal manner and then we'd have to go through the legal process all over again because the law is too vague. In stances when the lack of clarity of the legislation leads to legal challenges SCotUS has pretty consistently ruled that Congress needs to pass better, more clear legislation because the court doesn't want to do Congress' job for them.
Vaktathi wrote: The electoral college has failed twice in the last five elections to match the popular vote. It does not help that in the two instances this has occurred, it has resulted in quite possibly the least popular and most divisive administrations this nation has seen in recent memory, and losing the popular vote undercut the popular trust in those administrations frm day 1.
Given that the electoral college has also been divorced from its independent "super citizen" / senatorial equivalent role in almost all respects (and instead is allocated on pure majority vote in each state, regardless of the magnitude of the victory, largely cancelling out millions of votes and allowing someone to win election with as little as a quarter of the popular vote),
Hence, my argument to repeal the 17th Admendment.
this dramatically undercuts its role and the public trust in that role. It is difficult to see what sort of check or balance it continues to serve in such light, and largey just instead looks to be another partisan gaming mechanism instead of serving any meaningful balance of power function. It disenfranchises millions of red voters in blue states and millions of blue voters in red states, stands in the way of any third party having any realistic chance, and gives some very small states radically outsized power than they have any real reason to wield.
The sooner the EC goes bye-bye, the better American democracy will be for it.
Quite the opposite. Worked as intended. A majority of States chose the president. See: United STATES. Not NY and CA et al
To give you the idea... consider there are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
I would have to ask why do we care about counties? I cross 3 county borders every day and cant tell you squat about the difference between them, while when I lived in CA the single county I lived in had more people than the entire state I now reside does and encompasses vastly more area than all 3 of the ones I cross today do. They're not something people generally tend to identify or associate with strongly, I've never encountered anyone who has referenced what county they live in when asked where they are from. They are internal state divisions that have little connection to population, cultural, economic or ethnic divides, with little or no set size or number. I just dont see what representational relevancy they have aside from to cherry pick a very specific data set that is going to overwhelmingly vastly overrepresent rural voters by orders of magnitude because practically nobody (in a relative sense) lives in most of those counties.
Yeah, if you section stuff up by County, Trump won huge. When put into the context that a County has no relation at all to anything, and that Alpine county in CA barely squeeks into the 4 digits on population, while Los Angeles county alone has literally *ten thousand times* as many people, the relevancy of counties in a national election becomes zero. States at least have very real cultural, ethnic, economic, historical, and major geographic distinctions in most cases to drive some state specific representation (such as in congress), but counties by and large do not in the same ways.
With a straight national vote state, city, county, etc lines become irrelevant. They dont matter aside from how you organize reporting, but at the end youd calculate all votes, not votes by geographic region. Candidates could run on vastly different platforms than they do now. They would in fact have to. A vote in rural Wyoming and a vote in NYC would count the same, and instead of going after those stark urban/rural divides that the EC pushes, you could campaign on much more universal issues and platforms where you could draw much more heavily on centrist candidates that appeal to people wherever they live, not trying to suck up to specific areas.
I get that some of you don't like Trump... but, that's on the quality of his opponent, who was an exceptionally bad candidate, not the EC.
I have always had issues with the EC, Trump is just the latest and most egregious example of its failure as an institution.
Why have states at all then? We're all US residents/citizens why divide the country up into small semi autonomous states instead of having just one big state for everyone?
Mainly because not everything is a direct contest for a single nationally representative office.
Because the Constitution states that 538 people are allowed to vote for President, and states are able to pick those 538 people in any way they want.
You, I, or anyone else has ZERO constitution right to pick our POTUS. We hold our constitution sacred, but there is some amazingly stupid stuff in it as well.
aye, thats fair, everyone has something they dislike in there, the EC is one of my big bugbears
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.
whembly wrote: I get that some of you don't like Trump... but, that's on the quality of his opponent, who was an exceptionally bad candidate, not the EC.
Well, I voted against Trump, but I agree with this statement.
Clinton was a historically vulnerable candidate with tons of baggage, and just about the only candidate that someone like Trump with all His baggage could beat.
The democrats have only themselves to blame for pushing her through the primary process, not the election rules. Even a candidate as far left of the US center as Sanders was probably would have beaten Trump. And that too would have been historic
For myself (and Tom and I have discussed this before ) I just view it as messy democracy doing its thing. There will be a democratic wave in the election later this year, and our system of checks and balances with the legislative and the judicial branches is working overtime in the interim. But the system itself, being able to handle a president like Trump, is working pretty darn well!
whembly wrote: Quite the opposite. Worked as intended. A majority of States chose the president. See: United STATES. Not NY and CA et al
I've explained to you multiple, multiple, multiple times that this simply isn't true. That's not how population distribution works in the real world. There aren't enough people in those two states to carry a candidate in a general popular vote election.
For context...there are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes combined.
For giggles... let's go back to NY state as there are 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) and Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Even though by virtue of being a populous state, they have more representation in Congress than most states.
Large, densely populated cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
There's so much to unpack here but I'll just go with the fact that misrepresenting math is bad and you shouldn't do it. Also, you're hung up on who won a county or city, not how many people voted for whom, which is a far more telling statistic.
Put another way: Hillary Clinton only won a majority of the popular vote in only thirteen states, the fewest of any major-party nominee since Bob Dole in 1996. In other words...Clinton was minority in 37 states. Here’s the map of where she and Trump carried popular majorities:
Spoiler:
I get that some of you don't like Trump... but, that's on the quality of his opponent, who was an exceptionally bad candidate, not the EC.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 17:52:27
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."
whembly wrote: Quite the opposite. Worked as intended. A majority of States chose the president. See: United STATES. Not NY and CA et al
I've explained to you multiple, multiple, multiple times that this simply isn't true. That's how how population distribution works in the real world. There aren't enough people in those too states to carry a candidate in a general popular vote election.
Scooty... that's your opinion on this issues... not something clad as something there's only one right answer.
You have problems with EC because of the reasons you stated.
I don't have problems with EC because of the reasons I've stated.
Doesn't mean one of us is right and the other is wrong.
For context...there are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes combined.
For giggles... let's go back to NY state as there are 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) and Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Don't have facebook... but, okay I stand corrected.
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Even though by virtue of being a populous state, they have more representation in Congress than most states.
Large, densely populated cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
There's so much to unpack here but I'll just go with the fact that misrepresenting math is bad and you shouldn't do it. Also, you're hung up on who won a county or city, not how many people voted for whom, which is a far more telling statistic.
No, it's useful as the voting population generally votes a certain way by region/local.
Put another way: Hillary Clinton only won a majority of the popular vote in only thirteen states, the fewest of any major-party nominee since Bob Dole in 1996. In other words...Clinton was minority in 37 states. Here’s the map of where she and Trump carried popular majorities:
Spoiler:
I get that some of you don't like Trump... but, that's on the quality of his opponent, who was an exceptionally bad candidate, not the EC.
Why have states at all then? We're all US residents/citizens why divide the country up into small semi autonomous states instead of having just one big state for everyone?
Mainly because not everything is a direct contest for a single nationally representative office.
Because the Constitution states that 538 people are allowed to vote for President, and states are able to pick those 538 people in any way they want.
You, I, or anyone else has ZERO constitution right to pick our POTUS. We hold our constitution sacred, but there is some amazingly stupid stuff in it as well.
aye, thats fair, everyone has something they dislike in there, the EC is one of my big bugbears
The PotUS is the executive of the nation, the nation is a republic of 50 distinct States, the number of people residing in those states is wholly irrelevant to the fact that our nation is made up of States and each State is responsible for electing Federal representatives, including voting for PotUS. The residents of the States have never had any right to vote for PotUS or elect PotUS, the States themselves have always had the responsibility of choosing Electors to cast votes for PotUS in the Electoral College but whether or not residents get to participate in a popular vote to determine the Electors and the votes of the Electors is subject to the respective State legislatures implementing such a system.
Statehood matters it can't just be swept aside for Presidential elections. The PotUS represents the nation not the citizenry. President Trump isn't MY president in the same sense that my state legislator is MY representative or that my Congressional representative is MY representative. The President is chosen by the States not by the people, nobody has a guaranteed right to cast a vote for the President because people don't elect the PotUS, the States do. The Federal govt was designed to have the House wherein the people are represented, the Senate wherein the individual States are represented and the President who represents all the states as a unified nation.
We don't even have a right to vote in a Party primary for PotUS. If the Republican Party decided that in order to avoid candidates like Trump from winning their nomination the Party would change its bylaws and go back to the old system of Party leaders choosing the nominee themselves (Hubert Humphrey won the nomination for the Democrats in 1968 and didn't even enter any of the 13 state primaries (because out of 50 states only 13 had Democratic primaries)) they could make that change and it would be perfectly legal. The process of successfully changing the Party bylaws to remove primary elections would be daunting but it's certainly possible.
If it hasn't been asked was there a noticeable increase or decrease in voter participation in Maine and Nebraska in presidential elections after they implemented the splitting of EC votes by percentage?
Ustrello wrote: If it hasn't been asked was there a noticeable increase or decrease in voter participation in Maine and Nebraska in presidential elections after they implemented the splitting of EC votes by percentage?
For clarity, it's not by percentage.
It's two votes for the winner of the statewide total, and then one vote for the winner of each individual district. It's still "winner takes all", they just have more individual opportunities to win each electoral vote.
whembly wrote: Quite the opposite. Worked as intended. A majority of States chose the president. See: United STATES. Not NY and CA et al
I've explained to you multiple, multiple, multiple times that this simply isn't true. That's how how population distribution works in the real world. There aren't enough people in those too states to carry a candidate in a general popular vote election.
Going by the numbers on CNN (https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results) Clinton beat Trump by 2,868,691 in the popular vote. Clinton also beat Trump by 4,269,978 in the popular vote in California. Therefore, simply by winning California by a wide margin Clinton overcame losing to Trump in the popular vote in the other 49 states (and DC) combined.
) I just view it as messy democracy doing its thing. There will be a democratic wave in the election later this year, and our system of checks and balances with the legislative and the judicial branches is working overtime in the interim. But the system itself, being able to handle a president like Trump, is working pretty darn well!
