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
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
![]()
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.
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.
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.
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. -KVRe: #164100
May I ask why the part about the house/senate compromise was highlighted in asterisks?
Ah, ok. Thought there might have been something specific being addressed there.
edited 25th Dec '16 10:47:28 AM by sgamer82
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.
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.
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 surprisedThe 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.” ~ CyranWhat the fuck, RNC!
Are they really comparing Trump to Jesus and calling him a new king?
Do not want!
![]()
"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.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
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.
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
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."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.

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.