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
The problem is that rual areas should be draged around by metro areas any way,
Metro areas A) Have way more people. and B) Have way more diversity
Rural areas are home to shity education and even shittier ideas, if you look at where the racisim and stuff lies, it is still heavily weighted twords rual areas.
Besides, even if you won the 10 most populous cities in the US, without a single disenter in any of them, you have won 1/6th of the votes you would need to have a guaranteed election.
Yet to win by the electoral collage, you just need the population of dalas texas voting for you if they are stratigicly placed.
She wasn't. That was a dishonest meme spread around by some of the far-left and most on the alt-right. The latter typically claimed she was going to start WWIII with the Russians because she wanted a no-fly zone over Syria; on several occasions people popped into the thread to repeat that accusation, then immediately left (said accusation was typically voiced as a variant on one of "Is it true Clinton wants a war with Russia?" or "I hope Clinton does not win/am glad she did not win because she wants a war with Russia"). I also saw it repeated ad nauseum by people in my Facebook feed because apparently if you say it often enough it becomes the truth.
You'd think the USA had never shot down/threatened to shoot down a Russian plane before.
edited 11th Feb '17 12:21:01 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
What in the world does that have to do with whether or not the EC is worth keeping as part of our voting process? Voting for president isn't a "measure" or some leader taking an action because they believe it has a benefit despite unpopularity. Voting for president determines the direction the country takes; the majority should absolutely rule in this case. Anyone complaining about representation can be pointed to the equally important Congress, which has two houses with seats arranged in such a way as to address that issue.
![]()
![]()
Oh I very much know, I wasn't saying Dallas itself was useful under the current system, just giving a scale for how many people you need to win under the electoral collage and why it is so fucked up.
![]()
The problem is the rual areas dont just lead in on popular ideas, they lead in racisim and sexisim and just general backwards ideas due to poor education and lack of diveristy.
This is..... very universal.
Trying to pretend all ideas are equaly valid is dangerous, because ideas like race/religion x is better then race y or that sex/uality y is better then sex/uality z are not so. :/
That is true as well, since it is a representative democracy, there is an arbiter there to make unpopular decisions if they are necicery.
edited 11th Feb '17 1:18:51 AM by Imca
Will of the majority may not be perfect, but it is fundamentally superior to will of the arbitrarily-selected minority.
edited 11th Feb '17 4:12:10 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I don't get why votes should be weighted more or less, depending on where you live. If every vote would be counted the same, how is this unfair to people in rural areas? Their vote would count the same as a person's in an urban area. Why should your opinion suddenly weight more depending on your geographical position? If we do that, we might as well count votes from people living in red houses twice and people living in blue houses three times. Makes as much sense.
The main problem is that the United States is a federal system, which means that the states are, constitutionally, semi-soveriegn. We do not and cannot have a national election for president, we have fifty local ones. The best we could do would be to have fifty popular elections, one in each state, but that would require an amendment to the constitution, which cant happen without the support of some of the very states who gain under the current system. So never going to happen.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Things are stepping up in California: Jerry Brown requests presidential disaster declaration for January storms
. And Use of untested spillway again a possibility at crippled Oroville dam
. Seems like water inflow at the highest dam of the US has forced them to open the normal spillway, but like at Glen Canyon dam in 1983 it can't handle such high water quantities and is being damaged by them. They are thinking of using another spillway, but that one would probably result in severe erosion in the area.
I still say a good way to "split the difference" - that hopefully doesn't fall into the Golden Mean Fallacy while I'm at it - is to have the EC go by apportioned voting rather than Winner-Takes-All, and base it on the State-wide vote rather than "Well, X won Y districts, so they get Z% of the EC for the State", as gerrymandering has already done that idea in. That way, the smaller/less-populated States don't get constantly overridden by the more populated ones, and most importantly it completely kills the "Well, Texas is a Red State, and California's a Blue State, so I'm not going to waste any time campaigning there" aspect of the Presidential race, since snagging a few more EC votes from your opponent in a State that traditionally goes for them could make a crucial difference.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
![]()
We managed to amend the Constitution to include direct popular elections for Senators. Even though passing it meant 2/3rds of Senators at the time had to vote to abolish the system that gave them their jobs, and 3/4th of State legislatures had to vote power away from themselves.
Given this, I could see a scenario in a post-Trump America where there is the political will to switch to a national popular vote, either via a constitutional Amendment or an interstate compact.
edited 11th Feb '17 6:15:19 AM by Falrinn
Changing to popular vote doesn't mean rural areas and small states have no say. This bullshit meme needs to die. Every state is appointed two senators from California to Alaska. This is on purpose and I think it's as good a system as any for making sure states get equal representation. The House, if it wasn't arbitrarily capped, would be weighted pretty heavily in favor of bigger blue states but that doesn't mean rural areas get no representation. They still have their own representatives in the House. Now, the president is different. As the representative of the American people there is absolutely no excuse why they shouldn't reflect their collective will by being elected through a straight popular vote. Is it possible that the majority could favor a terrible politician or support ideas that are bad? Yes, but it's our government and media's moral obligation to educate the populace in the truth so they can make appropriate decisions.
A couple of things (that people haven't mentioned yet). First that that argument is a fallacy. It assumes everyone in metropolitan and rural areas vote identical, which is simply not true. The metropolitan areas won't "drag around" the rural areas because vote distribution is not that simple. Second, the electoral college don't protect the rural areas at all (it is still decided in a local popular vote and the swing states are not particularly rural). Finally, that is literally why local representation exist. Theoretically the metropolitan areas (or any particular are) shouldn't be dragging anyone around because congress and the senate won't allow it.
Political systems and fair representation are complicated things and I won't pretend to understand it perfectly or to know what is best. But from where I am sitting, it is clear the US has a fuck tons of problems that people insist in ignore or pretend it is the best there could be. Other countries have their shit together better than the US. Other countries wouldn't elect a president with a minority vote. Other countries have more than have more than 60% voter turnout. Other countries don't have large parts of their populations completely unrepresented because of arcane state rules. So why can't the US do it? Why so many USAmericans insist their system is great?
PS:I know you are not from the US, Vandro. My rant was not aimed to you, I was merely expressing my frustration with this type of attitude I've encountered around.
edited 11th Feb '17 6:24:40 AM by Heatth
Something we're way too aware to but here it is.
Vice: Every insult used by the right explained
The main problem is that, unless every state went proportional at once, any state that did it would be shooting themselves in the foot. If California does it, then that benefits the GOP because California is reliably blue so them going proportional would give the GOP some votes they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. If Texas does it, then that benefits the Democrats, because Texas is reliably red so them going proportional would give the Democrats some votes they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. So there's no incentive for any state (or, perhaps more importantly, any state legislature) to make that change.
The best way to fix the system at the moment (ie, doesn't require a constitutional amendment, doesn't disadvantage the party you like in the meantime) is for states to write laws saying that all of their electoral college votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote. This would effectively abolish the electoral college, can be implemented piecemeal instead of having to be done all at once, and doesn't mean states are screwing themselves in the meantime.

Also, I was also (Albeit a bit stubbornly) a motivational booster to many of the persons who were also stating: "He'll send troops and we're all finished because it's what dictators do." while me and some other rebuked their claims of it.
The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.