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 I explained it in a History class, the Electoral College was created to avoid what I call "The Hunger Games Divide." Historically, rural and urban people have always been semi at odds with each other with Roman writings talking about how they were dragging down the entirety of the nation with their stupidity versus them being degenerate decadent wastes of space.
The Electoral College is meant to force elected officials to cater to the needs of everyone in the nation versus, say, California electing a guy on the platform of enslaving the people in Kansas to feed them for free.
I feel its extremely good as an idea and far superior to a straight majority.
edited 4th May '18 6:25:30 AM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The loyalists aren't enough for him to win re-election, especially with all these scandals that won't go away/keep escalating. I'm not saying its impossible, but he's already lost substantial support among the demographics that won him the election in the first place, and (more importantly) opposition to him is driving Democratic turnout way up, which should evade the issue of swing states barely going to him next time round.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.It depends if there really is a majority to win the electoral college on pure racism.
If that's the case, Trump has ever betrayed his base and they'll re-elect him.
Then the only way to get him out is the Democrats gaining ground or the Republicans getting sick of him or him dying (not inconceivable at his age) of the fact he's lived life as a drunk frat boy.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.No the electoral college is meant to force elected officials to have to cater to souther know states, versus say, New York electing a guy on a platform of stopping Georgia enslaving black to pick cotten for free.
You really chose a bad metaphor there with slavery, what with the electoral college being designed to make slave states more powerful.
edited 4th May '18 7:05:34 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Charles Pipps: The electoral college gives too much power to the middle states and takes it away from the majority. I know a major idea is that it helps people from getting away from the tyranny of the majority but it doesn't actually work like that. Instead in 2016 it gave power to a bunch of racist people in the mid-west, and putting them in power caused at least 1 death, sexual assault and probably many more unreported ones.
Until a direct democracy is tested, I don't think we can say it would be as bad as that. If you win by 3 million votes you should win the election. Get rid of the College and we get a better, less republican empowering society.
Y'all might find this interesting. It's a proposal for a progressive populist movement to win rural voters back from the Republicans. Although focused on rural voters, their ideas would equally apply to other swing districts. It certainly has nothing to do with "shifting to the center". Here's the link
.
BTW, People's Action is non-profit activist group that is organizing local grassroots organizations around the United States. They provided the bulk of training for the Indivisible group I belong to. I dont know much more about them.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The Electoral College has the effect of concentrating political campaigning into "swing states" — those with a strong chance to decide the election by flipping from one party to another. As such, the concerns and issues of "safe" states tend to get neglected because, really, who bothers to contest California or Montana?
Going to a simple majority would dramatically shift the campaign landscape, and presumably move the interest towards the most populous areas because candidates would get the biggest bang for their buck from those.
It is "fair", for certain definitions of that word, to say that simple majority elections would cause a lot less attention to be paid to rural, less densely populated states, but why we've spent so many years idolizing farmers is beyond me. Certainly the idea of the "wisdom of the earth" is pure baloney, and this extra attention has allowed a highly vocal minority of culturally isolated racists to dictate our national politics.
What is wrong, morally and ethically, with having each vote carry equal weight? I've never heard a satisfying explanation.
I think the best explanation for the EC, aside from the slave states thing, is that the Founders didn't really think that the voice of the average citizen carried a lot of weight: they imagined that electors would be people with greater knowledge and responsibility who could, if they saw fit, override a particularly stupid popular vote — much like the idea of superdelegates in the individual parties.
edited 4th May '18 7:22:00 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The unnerving thing about Trump's approval rating is that it seems like its natural place is way higher than it has any right to be. People are all too willing to essentially say "eh, I approve" as long as he's not actively being terrible. Granted, he's generally actively being terrible but it's worrisome. Back in early April, amid Stormy stuff, amid gas prices going up, amid people filing their taxes and realizing the "tax break" did nothing for them, his ratings went up. And now he legitimately has a claim to saying "I brought peace and denuclearization to Korea."
I have less faith in the middle swings than a lot of people in this topic do, in other words.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Why we idolize farmers:
1. They're kind of necessary for basic survival.
2. They're extremely vulnerable.
You really chose a bad metaphor there with slavery, what with the electoral college being designed to make slave states more powerful.
The electoral college elected a guy who the South rebelled out of terror from, ending a long national horror.
edited 4th May '18 7:29:54 AM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I'm not actually sure why states do things this way — for solidly red or blue states it helps that party win the presidency, but for swing states, you'd think they'd be more willing to go to a proportional system. (There are a couple states that aren't winner-take-all states, but they go by district instead, which is worse since it's vulnerable to gerrymandering.)
edited 4th May '18 7:40:54 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.The simple fact of the matter is that constitutionally, the United States is a federal system, the states are semi-soverign political entities, and the law says that it's the states that elect the President, not directly the people. The Electoral College is a compromise between straight national representation, and giving each state equal representation. Since it would take a majority of the states to change the constitution, and since most of them would lose representation thereby, give it up, it's never happening.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.![]()
For a profession we "idolize" we don't seem to give that much actual support. There's a reason suicide rates among farmers are relatively high. And no, it's not Monsanto.
Yeah....another reason why they need representation that works for them.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Farmers and rural voters in general shouldn't be in a position where they're being catered to by the entirety of the electoral system.
A supermajority of the Senate is basically handed to them to pick on a platter, ffs, and then on top of that the electoral college disproportionately gives major power to tiny states.
![]()
![]()
Which will never be repubs, who only support whoever gives them a lot of money.
Agreed, some of the countries best developments only came because the coastal states drug other states kicking and screaming into the better future. It's unfortunate to say, but a lot of those states governments don't have the best interests for their population at heart, and so the federal government has to help them. But a lot of those times those people continue to vote for a way that does not help them.
edited 4th May '18 7:45:23 AM by Wildcard

The thing is, Trump loyalists aren't saying that second part.
i'm tired, my friend