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
That.
I could only really conceive of a pure majority vote if we abolished state lines entirely so that people living in, say, Connecticut or Wyoming aren't effectively rendered invalid for democratic purposes on account of being too irrelevant to bother campaigning for.
And abolishing state lines is a much larger conversation.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.We're not a direct democracy. Never have been. Arguing on the principle of one man one vote, no minority protections in electing the president is irrelevant because of that. Telling me how the Senate is that protection is also meaningless because the Senate has no say in the election of the president (barring extraordinary circumstances).
Again, you both are only arguing the way you are because it benefits you as democrats. Nothing to do with principle.
EDIT- I keep getting the
.
As for not giving a shit what the founding fathers wanted, go to a different country otherwise, because we only have the constitution to go on. That'd certainly be easier for you and anyone else like you than amending the damn thing.
edited 17th Dec '15 11:50:21 AM by FFShinra
You view it as democratic, therefore, for Republicans to represent a minority of the national vote but a majority of Congress? How, exactly, does that fit into your sense of ethics? Because it sounds an awful lot to me like the desperate clutching of a demographic that is determined to suborn the will of the people in order to remain in power.
Edit: And this "don't like it, GTFO" mentality is really helping, thanks. That's the fun thing about a democracy; you are allowed to express an opinion and try to get it enacted through voting.
edited 17th Dec '15 11:52:38 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not attacking. I'd be using more flowery language if I was attacking.
I already argued the point in good faith earlier, which others have now stated in different ways: change the state boundaries to make it fair. Because such a huge change in how the presidency is elected without doing so fucks over at least a third of the states. You decided to ignore me, so now I'm arguing against the reasons behind this argument.
The more populous states are on the coast, which are a lot more blue than the flyover states. Thats why I think the borders need redrawing or, as another poster as how stated, perhaps abolishing so that the voter can't be tied to a particular state and thus fucked over.
edited 17th Dec '15 11:53:11 AM by FFShinra
Yes, yes it does. Why are states important, anyway, except as jurisdictional units? I'm an American first and a Pennsylvanian second.
edited 17th Dec '15 11:53:50 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah, actually. In 2000 it would have been in Gore's favor, but that's basically an exception to the rule.
If anything, we don't know who it would benefit, because a lot of people would show up to vote who currently don't show up, because they realize that if their state is 60/40 that doesn't mean that their vote is irrelevant.
To play devil's advocate with myself so that people don't think I'm just shelling for the position that supports my side, you could address that particular problem by simply having electoral votes be awarded proportionally. Of course, Republican state legislatures have rigged it so that the states they control (due to 2010) now award proportionally if they're minority of the votes, whereas states like Nevada that used to award proportionally (and go pretty hard Republican) are now winner-take-all.
On second thought, never mind. So what if the Presidential Candidate only campaigns in major population centers? We live in the digital age. We are having this conversation in a place where many of us in the "room" so to speak live across the goddamn ocean.
It's the digital age. A politician does not need to drop by your city for you to know that he exists and what he stands for.
edited 17th Dec '15 11:55:05 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
Eh, yeah he does. Retail politics is still a thing. Not everywhere, but not nowhere either.
EDIT- I keep getting the ninja, Fighteer and Tomu, so thats why I'm not addressing everything you guys are saying about my own arguments. No worries though, I will do so, so don't think I'm ignoring the jibes.
edited 17th Dec '15 11:56:38 AM by FFShinra
Also, it's not like there's zero empirical evidence for this. Other countries do things differently.
Why not point out how in France, which uses a direct vote for their prime minister, rural voters which make up only 2% of the population have had their vested interests completely trounced every electorate and they've since been sold into slavery?
Yeah, every single factoid in that paragraph was made up, but you get the idea. Or are there literally no countries on earth that elect their head of state through direct democracy?
Fair enough. Thread kinda asploded.
edited 17th Dec '15 11:57:33 AM by TheyCallMeTomu
Plus it's not like the Electoral College as it stands really does much for small states as individual entities anyway. The fact that most of those "fly overs" go Republican is the only reason they really matter at all in the Electoral College.
If they were more mixed voting habits, neither say, Wyoming having three and going Republican nor Montana having three and going Democrat would mean much to either.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:00:44 PM by LSBK
Seems to me that even in a no-borders direct democracy scenario, representation is being shoehorned into two imperfectly representative camps (parties), which is the the bigger problem.
Long story short: Head of State in Switzerland is not an important or powerful job. About like VP in the States. Breaks rare ties.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:06:14 PM by eyebones
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. MenckenWell, if anything, Switzerland's society is an outlier in terms of how a democratic state can maintain high living standards while still being dominated by business interests. It achieves this by basically being the financial hub of Europe: it's viewed as such a safe haven for cash that it has a massive net investment surplus. Its biggest problem is keeping the value of its currency competitive against massive external pressure.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Frankly if it were up to me, I'd simply abolish the FPTP system at the state level. Then it unlocks minority votes at the coast as well as in the flyovers.
EDIT- Then again, I'd break the party duopoly and go with parliamentary rules, but that's even more crazy talk.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:07:18 PM by FFShinra
Also, the major problem with gerrymandering and the unequal representation of voters between more and less populous states is that it allows a party (the Republicans) to remain in power despite commanding a minority of the popular vote. When they can rig elections to be "safe" for themselves no matter what, they no longer have any need to mark their ideas to market — they essentially enjoy monopoly power.
This means that there is no incentive for them to adapt to changing political, social, and economic reality. Faced with an evolving environment, they dig ever deeper into their ideological fortress, secure in the knowledge that they've rigged the game to guarantee that they stay in power no matter what.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"1. Presidential candidates pay almost no attention to most small states currently. They also don't pay much attention to big states. They only pay attention to swing states that could go either way, which is somewhere around 4-8 states depending on who you ask and how they view it. So small states already aren't benefiting from the current system, and we have an effective tyranny by minority, because those 4-8 states absolutely are a minority.
2. Big population centers and large states don't vote in lockstep. 41% of Texans voted for Obama in 2012, 35% of the people in NY State voted for Romney. Currently their votes count for nothing, whereas under simple popular vote, it would actually have meaning. Those votes are going to continue to be split, because there is no such thing as universal agreement after you get a group up to more than a few people, and it's rare even then. Also, there are only so many big population centers to pick from. New York City's population is about 8.5 million, LA is a hair under 4 million, Chicago around 2.7. After that it drops hard and fast, and by the time we hit the 12th biggest city we're down to 850,000, or a tenth or the number 1 city. Again, even if you assumed these big cities were all voting in lockstep and voting for the same thing, (and I tend to doubt that Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are going to have 100% agreement with NYC when it comes to voting) they still fall well short of a majority, so it still behooves the president to communicate with and know the concerns of other areas.
3. You seem to be forgetting that the Legislature is at least supposed to play a part in governance. The President doesn't just get elected and make decision and rules on his own, Congress passes bills and the president either agrees, or vetoes it, and Congress then either gives up or overrides his veto. And Congress comes from the states. Including small ones. And already has a chamber of the legislature, (pretty clearly meant to be the more powerful of the two bodies) where the playing ground is artificially leveled and the small states have their say, including all sorts of means through procedures like amendments, budget riders, etc. to make sure their interests get represented beyond their numbers.
It doesn't matter if the President doesn't care about Lakeland, Colorado, or if the resident there didn't vote for the president, they have their Reps in the House and 2 Senators the residents there can lean on to represent them, even if the President from the last campaign didn't happen to stop by their town and personally listen to their stories and interests.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |

edited 17th Dec '15 11:47:04 AM by Kostya