TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Yinyang107 from the True North (Decatroper) Relationship Status: Tongue-tied
#164126: Dec 25th 2016 at 10:01:33 AM

I don't see the issue with favoring densely-populated areas if those areas, by definition, have more people. Any democratic system should be favoring areas with more people.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#164127: Dec 25th 2016 at 10:05:46 AM

Recently meaning since 1824?
Note also that I said I assumed there had always been some group or another wanting to abolish the EC. That said, I don't see anything in the wiki article that, at that point, anything was said about changing or abolishing the College itself. The least democratic thing in that article is that the Presidential vote went to the House, who chose who they wanted. Something, admittedly, we feared happening now had the Clinton/Trump race been inconclusive. As Fighteer said, though, while the actions taken may not have been democratic, that was still a part of the established process and rules for selecting our leadership.

How many people understand the system well enough?
You're glossing over one crucial fact that I myself was not aware of before seeing it explained here in this thread: Apparently, most voters are more or less completely ignorant of how the EC works, or are even unaware that it even exists, with the ignorance largely persisting up to a few weeks before Election Day. And somehow the next election in four years sees similarly large numbers of US voters expressing that surprise yet again (though how many of them are the same ones from four years ago is unknown to me).
I have to admit, that had not occurred to me at the time I said that. And it should have, since I tend to be a bit of a cynic where the intelligence of large groups of people are concerned.

Getting back to this, can you prove demographic trends wont make the rate of this happening increase?
Nope. If it does increase, then there would indeed be grounds to change the system. Especially if it's as big a margin as the Trump/Clinton popular vote.

and what if after 2020 the republicans gerrymander the house in a way that gives their states more EC weight? (moving as many house districts as possible without making it too obvious to states where they have favorable demographic trends, for example taking from Illinois to give them to South Carolina and gerrymandering the new districts to favor them).
That seems more concerned with how the Republicans might game the system more than any flaws in the system itself. Someone trying to game the system is going to occur no matter what. Whether the EC makes that esier or harder than a direct popular vote system I have no idea.

I don't see the issue with favoring densely-populated areas if those areas, by definition, have more people. Any democratic system should be favoring areas with more people.
I think the issue is one of Equality or Equatability. The Electoral College is, on paper at least note , supposed to give the areas that would be under-represented in a strict popular vote a chance to have their say. I've always understood as similar to the compromise that gave us both the Senate and the House vs just one or the other.

As much as people say Clinton won the popular vote, the Electoral College counted the popular vote on a state-by-state basis and from that Trump won.

edited 25th Dec '16 10:10:01 AM by sgamer82

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#164128: Dec 25th 2016 at 10:13:23 AM

[up][up] The idea is that it would be very utilitarian. For example in a vote that's a referendum on natural resource distribution, or a situation like Star Trek Insurrection people in less densely populated areas would be directly disenfranchised for the sake of the more populous region. Or, say, a situation like the Dakota pipeline where large numbers of people may be for something that's actively harmful to a small part of the population.

Yinyang107 from the True North (Decatroper) Relationship Status: Tongue-tied
#164129: Dec 25th 2016 at 10:14:32 AM

Alright yeah, I could see that.

ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#164130: Dec 25th 2016 at 10:29:12 AM

The issue is not that there is one portion of our government designed to represent the interests of less populous regions against a simply majority in the population centers-the issue is that most of the government is set up that way. States get two seats in the senate no matter how big they are, which is a major balancing factor. Then it tilts heavily in favor of less populous regions because of the House-there is a minimum of one representative, plus an absolute cap on the house that was frozen at the time and does not take into account population growth since. The result is a massive bulge heavily favoring solid red states in the south and midwest, with relatively stable populations-while fast growing populations in California, New York, and major population centers represent an increasingly insignificant voting power relative to their size. Which would not be a crippling imbalance, until you factor in Guam and the rest of the territories who have pushed for statehood and will never receive it, because the Republicans will never allow it. The GOP knows those territories represent a large portion of US citizens who will go the same way as Hawaii; solid blue, with any Republican ticket a futile enterprise.

The issue is not and never has been equal representation-the system is doing exactly what it was designed to do, which was favor the ancestral holdings of the founding fathers to keep control out of a simple majority of citizens.

IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#164131: Dec 25th 2016 at 10:31:54 AM

That seems more concerned with how the Republicans might game the system more than any flaws in the system itself. Someone trying to game the system is going to occur no matter what. Whether the EC makes that esier[sic] or harder than a direct popular vote system I have no idea.

Easier. With popular vote you'd have to convince enough people to vote for you. With EC you just need to be the one who decides how to allocate the electors.

I think the issue is one of Equality or Equatability. The Electoral College is, on paper at least note , supposed to give the areas that would be under-represented in a strict popular vote a chance to have their say. I've always understood as similar to the compromise that gave us both the Senate and the House vs just one or the other.

EDIT: disregard my answer to this last point, what I wanted to say has been better explained by the comment above mine.

edited 25th Dec '16 10:45:17 AM by IFwanderer

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#164132: Dec 25th 2016 at 10:38:44 AM

Re: #164100

May I ask why the part about the house/senate compromise was highlighted in asterisks?

[down]Ah, ok. Thought there might have been something specific being addressed there.

edited 25th Dec '16 10:47:28 AM by sgamer82

IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#164133: Dec 25th 2016 at 10:45:03 AM

Bad formatting, I got confused on the code to bold words. I'll fix it now.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#164134: Dec 25th 2016 at 10:51:45 AM

It would be easier for me to care about cities holding more power than rural areas if the rural areas weren't voting against their own interests and doing a lot of stuff out of spite.

Falrinn Since: Dec, 2014
#164135: Dec 25th 2016 at 11:29:01 AM

I also think it needs to be said that there is a huge difference between allowing minorities to block action that is especially harmful to their interests under certain circumstances and allowing a specific minority to rule everyone.

There is a lot of merit to the former, and it can be mostly solved in a straightforward manner by requiring larger and larger supermajorities to make more and more fundamental changes to the law. If we were to switch to a popular vote for the Presidency, perhaps a candidate would need to get 55% of the vote to avoid a runoff.

The EC however is creating the latter scenario. Allowing a specific minority (in this case rural voters) to essentially rule directly. And that is just fundamentally undemocratic.

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#164136: Dec 25th 2016 at 11:42:10 AM

Mhm. Tyranny of the Majority is big and thorny problem with democracies, but the Democrat voters are only the majority in aggregate- they have an extremely divisive coalition. Their majority is former by a combination of every minority and a portion of the majority.

It should also be noted that the Electoral College is not a system that's used by any other democratic countries.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#164137: Dec 25th 2016 at 11:48:05 AM

It's also kind of funny that people claim that small states would get less attention in elections if the EC was gone. That's kind of the case even with the EC. Most of the attention is focused on bigger states and/or swing states. And only a few of the swing states have low EC counts.

One argument in favor of removing the EC is that it would give GOP voters in "Blue" states and Democrat voters in "Red" states more incentive to vote. Heck, removing the EC would give everyone more incentive to vote.

edited 25th Dec '16 11:50:25 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#164138: Dec 25th 2016 at 12:06:26 PM

The answer to the risk fo a tyranny of the majority is not to institute a tyranny of the minority.

Likewise reforming the electoral college ignores the fact that it's an inherently biased system that's inherently anti-democratic. It's like talking about reforming Jim Crow.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#164139: Dec 25th 2016 at 12:09:31 PM

States already have their own Representatives and Senators. If they're worried about people representing their interests they should turn to them. The President should represent the collective will of the people.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#164140: Dec 25th 2016 at 12:20:19 PM

Merry Christmas to all! Over two millennia ago, a new hope was born into the world, a Savior who would offer the promise of salvation to all mankind. Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King.

What the fuck, RNC!

Are they really comparing Trump to Jesus and calling him a new king?

Do not want!

RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#164141: Dec 25th 2016 at 12:38:12 PM

In terms of Christian rhetoric it's pretty standard - every Christmas is the birth of Jesus/a new King. That said, it's about as tone-deaf as it's possible to be given the circumstances - and it's very easy to read as a dogwhistle.

It's been fun.
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#164142: Dec 25th 2016 at 2:01:42 PM

Easier. With popular vote you'd have to convince enough people to vote for you. With EC you just need to be the one who decides how to allocate the electors.
Or instead of having to convince the people at large to vote for you, you just have to convince the correct, overrepresented people to vote for you.

Reflextion from a post-sanity world (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
#164143: Dec 25th 2016 at 2:08:34 PM

[up][up] "Dogwhistle" my fat white ass, that was a goddamned 9001-decibel trumpet call. And here I thought my opinion of Conservative "Christians" couldn't possibly get any lower.

edited 25th Dec '16 2:12:23 PM by Reflextion

Someone did tell me life was going to be this way.
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#164144: Dec 25th 2016 at 2:16:48 PM

With the electoral college: it has flaws, but I think that it's important to prevent the densest community from controlling all of society. It let Trump win, but that's not necessarily relevant.

Mind you, I do think there's other options. We currently have a 1 vote per person system. I think it'd be better to let people vote for all the people they consider acceptable, that way the system encourages not pissing off people rather than pandering to one group.

Leviticus 19:34
Falrinn Since: Dec, 2014
#164145: Dec 25th 2016 at 3:03:18 PM

[up] I'm definitely a fan of approval voting.

It's less complicated then Preferential voting, vastly reduces if not eliminates the spoiler effect, lets 3rd parties more accurately gauge their support base, and of course it gives people the power to literally vote for "Anyone but that jerk" by making everyone on the ballot except the candidate they truly despise.

I don't like the EC because it essentially trades "tyranny of the majority" for "tyranny of the minority". Allowing urban centers to rule while disregarding the will of rural areas is bad certainly, but allowing rural areas to rule while disregarding the will of urban centers AND the absolutely majority of the population is probably even worse.

Shippudentimes Since: Dec, 2012
#164146: Dec 25th 2016 at 3:22:41 PM

[up] x6 Where's the original source? 'Cause I Google-searched the quote and the first five results said it happened, and the rest are from seemingly alt-right and tabloid sources, including, of course, Breidbart, saying it's fake news and it didn't happen.

Reason for my asking is 'cause I just see the quote and nothing linking to any credible news sources.

edited 25th Dec '16 3:23:16 PM by Shippudentimes

RBluefish Since: Nov, 2013
#164147: Dec 25th 2016 at 3:36:33 PM

[up] Right here. It's an official statement from the RNC, disturbingly.

And tick another box on the We're Fucked Checklist, because deifying the Leader is another time-honored tradition in fascist states. The deification here may be more of a dogwhistle than an outright claim, but it's still very much there.

edited 25th Dec '16 3:37:01 PM by RBluefish

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#164148: Dec 25th 2016 at 4:08:38 PM

Protagonist: Popular vote doesn't mean the cities control the entire government. Each state gets its own Senators and Representatives. It should be their job to represent the interests of the state. The President should be focused on the entire country.

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#164149: Dec 25th 2016 at 4:40:25 PM

I'm not religious, but comparing Trump to Jesus has got to be blasphemy.

Then again, the extreme religious right has had a tenuous connection to Canon Jesus vs. their Fanon Jesus for a long time now.

I will hazard a guess that the real Jesus would preach against Trump and his lickspittles.

Do not obey in advance.
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#164150: Dec 25th 2016 at 4:47:00 PM

However, the Republican savior, Supply-Side Jesus, has no such qualms, so long as his followers get to continue to fleece everyone else.


Total posts: 417,856
Top