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
Abolishing FPTP moves us towards a parliamentary system whereby a minority party can still win seats if it gets enough votes. I don't mind that inherently, although it doesn't solve the problem of small states and rural counties having a disproportionate share of the per-capita vote.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The people want to have a role in electing the executive. Again saying "They already have the senate" or whatever, is irrelevant because we are talking about two different branches of government. Only way that DOES become relevant is if the Presidency becomes like a PM almost everywhere elsewhere in that its chosen by the legislature. Which is bad juju in the eyes of most Americans.
EDIT- @Fighteer - No, but it gets us closer. There is no grand unifying solution for this problem. It will be a series of steps, one of which is to make us more parliamentary.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:11:23 PM by FFShinra
The people DO have a role in determining the president under direct democracy Shinra. 1 person, 1 vote.
This argument makes zero sense.
In a popular vote scenario, you're part of the 45%. So you go "Awww man, I lost."
In an electoral college scenario,you're part of the 45% of your state. So you go "Aww man, I lost!"
edited 17th Dec '15 12:12:14 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Really? I didn't know South Carolina and Georgia were so blue! I didn't know that Maine, Connecticut and Oregon were so big, and Texas so small! Amazing the things I learn...
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Not if their vote is made meaningless, which it is outside of certain swing states.
Most states are one party states in practice, with only a handful that have truely dynamic politics. If you agree with the party in power, you don't care because you are set anyway. If you don't agree with the party in power, you don't care because you are screwed anyway.
Exceptions to the rule.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:14:07 PM by FFShinra
"Blueness" and "redness" are almost always functions of population density, not distribution. The rural vs. urban divide is far more pronounced than any geographic divide. Where you find major urban centers, you find Democratic majorities. The state lines are almost immaterial.
You do realize that's a rationale against the electoral college, not for it, right?
edited 17th Dec '15 12:14:38 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"...
See, the "their vote is made meaningless" statement is a vote AGAINST the electoral college. If the final popular vote determines the president, then every single vote regardless of state counts.
Also, most states are relatively purple:
Yes, this is the same damned video.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:15:04 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
I didn't say I was in favor of how things are now. I just don't like the idea, on principle, of screwing over a third of the states or so without a mechanism to ensure their vote means a damn. One person one vote does not do that simply by abolishing the electoral college.
Thats why I keep offering alternatives (or at least intermediary steps toward alternatives) to help rectify it. If you guys would stop acting so arrogant toward those who disagree with your visions, you'd realize that.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:17:58 PM by FFShinra
Why does the state as a unit of voting power matter at all? You haven't justified that, just assumed it as a given.
I am in a group of 100 people. We all vote. My one vote is exactly the same as anyone else's. How is this unfair?
I am in a clique of 10 people, Sally is in a clique of 40 people, and Julie is in a clique of 50 people. The rules say that each clique has an equal vote. My vote is now worth five times as much as Julie's. How is this fair? Moreover, if my vote goes against that of six people within my clique, I might as well not bother.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:19:04 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In real life, decisions are made at the margin. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Do I think direct democratic voting of the president solves all problems? No of course not. I just think it's an alternative that's better than the electoral college.
The states aren't "screwed over." The states can't be screwed over. They're not people. And the INDIVIDUALS IN THOSE STATES aren't screwed over, they just have their vote count ONLY as much as everyone in each other state.
Also, let's use this "screwed over" methodology. In actual reality, being "screwed over" simply means the candidate that you choose is not elected. By definition, in a non-direct majority system, either the same number of people will be screwed over, or MORE people will be screwed over in the electoral college system.
So why exacty do we care that states are screwed over instead of people? The state itself does not have a vested interest; only it's people do.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:19:36 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
![]()
It's not an assumption, it's the reality. And one I wish could change, but I'm going with what we got now. And you still need administrative units, I just think they need to be completely redrawn, not these silly straight lines or obsession with the number of states that seems to be the prevailing momentum.
The people are more vested in their state than otherwise. Federal programs can screw over certain states depending on whether they are enacted or repealed. A lot of the time, said programs fates are determined precisely because of what state they are or are not in.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:21:35 PM by FFShinra
States having direct authority-rather than simply the will of the voter base-to elect the president is what is in question in the first place. Ergo, you can't use it as the premise in an argument.
Saying "that's the reality" is missing the point that we're saying "that's a thing we need to change."
edited 17th Dec '15 12:21:51 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Because the people think this country is a confederation even when it's not. You have to break that mentality before you can do anything you are proposing.
You can't arbitrarily take power from the states because its better. It may very well be. You have to ensure the power enjoyed before isn't stripped by that action because then, in the eyes of the people who didn't realize they had too much power, they'll feel disenfranchised.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:24:03 PM by FFShinra
Constitutional representative government, which the U.S. has, is all about checks on the power of the majority. Being a minority in several senses of the word, I for one am glad of it.
The system we have now has the advantage that a majority agreed to it when it was established. If you're going to change the rules now you'll have to do it by the rules everyone agreed to play by, and convince enough states that presently benefit from the Electoral College that giving up that benefit is a good thing. Good luck with that.
Although, something similar did happen once already - with the 17th Amendment. I'm still not sure if that was a good idea or not.
Even if the democrats controlled it, it would still be impossible because its not a partisan issue really. The people, no matter the state or urban/rural divide or creed, will not want an upset to the status quo if they lose the power they have because of it.
But, if we're talking only in hypotheticals rather than practical solutions, then fine, I'll argue a redrawing and rebuilding of ALL states, have Congress be parliamentary, allow for more than two parties and coalition building, which means a powerful prime minister and a president that is elected at the national rather than state level.
I have no disagreement with you in terms of the ideal solution. But practically, I think such solutions are not gonna help.
![]()
![]()
![]()
It would help primarily because it would break the ability of a minority party to remain out of touch with reality and hide within an insular thought bubble if it wants to keep getting elected.
Yes, but you need to summarize the linked material so we don't have to go to an external site to know what you're talking about.
edited 17th Dec '15 12:33:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, I can get behind getting rid of FPTP but I don't really see how that changes the topic of conversation much between EC and DD.