TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#246801: Jun 23rd 2018 at 2:50:55 PM

[up][up][up][up][up][up][up]Depends on what you count as a major city, but in general the US' population is not concentrated enough that a presidential candidate could only campaign in major metropolitan areas and expect to win.

[up][up]That really doesn't explain how the electoral college helps with that.

edited 23rd Jun '18 2:51:56 PM by Mio

eyebones Since: Apr, 2004
#246802: Jun 23rd 2018 at 2:51:54 PM

I'd rather be a person than a rural area. A majority of people is what is being sought.

edited 23rd Jun '18 2:52:19 PM by eyebones

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. Mencken
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#246803: Jun 23rd 2018 at 2:52:27 PM

The Electoral College means that any President is required to give some attention to issues uniquely belonging to rural people.

Not much attention but some.

I'd rather be a person than a rural area. A majority of people is what is being sought.

Honestly, I'm for MORE things like the Electoral College since Europe shows the benefits of allowing representation by smaller groups versus "Winner Takes All."

edited 23rd Jun '18 2:55:01 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#246804: Jun 23rd 2018 at 2:53:11 PM

The electoral college means that a minority of people in the rural areas can hold back progress because they're somehow inherent virtuous or some other kind of anti-intellectual garbage. It objectively does not make small states less ignored and thus fails at its primary purpose.

edited 23rd Jun '18 2:53:44 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#246805: Jun 23rd 2018 at 2:54:37 PM

If, under a popular vote system, a candidate needed rural votes to win, then they would have to do that anyway.

Has anyone ever done a study that shows how election strategies would have to change if we switched to such a system?

edited 23rd Jun '18 2:54:50 PM by KarkatTheDalek

Oh God! Natural light!
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#246806: Jun 23rd 2018 at 2:55:37 PM

The electoral college means that a minority of people in the rural areas can hold back progress because they're somehow inherent virtuous or some other kind of anti-intellectual garbage. It objectively does not make small states less ignored and thus fails at its primary purpose.

They're poor so they don't matter. Got it.

edited 23rd Jun '18 2:55:54 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#246807: Jun 23rd 2018 at 2:56:26 PM

So why do poor rural people matter more than poor urban people?

You think rural people have some sort of monopoly on abject poverty?

edited 23rd Jun '18 2:56:46 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#246808: Jun 23rd 2018 at 2:58:03 PM

So why do poor rural people matter more than poor urban people?

You think rural people have some sort of monopoly on abject poverty?

No, the urban poor have their votes repressed too.

So tell me, how does removing the electoral college stop hunger and epidemics and horrors in the rural states.

Just tell me what makes it better for the people there?

edited 23rd Jun '18 2:58:26 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#246809: Jun 23rd 2018 at 2:58:41 PM

While smaller communities still tend to be ignored, there's three counterarguments I would make:

-That arguably means we need more electoral college, not less.

-Also keep in mind that isn't necessarily a bug, either. The electoral college is a compromise between states voting and popular vote. At a certain point, even with the electoral college a population can simply be too small to matter-that's deliberate.

-Also, these smaller communities not having much political influence means that they aren't interfering with popular vote all that much anyways-which should be a bonus for people who don't want them to have a lot more influence than their population size.

Leviticus 19:34
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#246811: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:01:56 PM

I have a simple belief about democracy. Democracy exists for the purposes of making sure your interests are represented by the state of which you are a part of. There is nothing inherently more valuable about 51,000 voters over 50,000 when the goal should be to represent all 101,000 voters' interests as best possible.

The whole purpose of a Federation of United States is that there are compromises and alliances to keep everyone working together. That includes the promise to represent the interests of individual states.

Unless you want to argue we should just do away with states period.

By putting Democrats in Charge.

Democrats can win the Electoral Vote....they have done in recent memory. They have done so by landslides.

  • waves robot arms*

Does.not.compute.does.not.compute.

Well there is one way to compute, that people don't think campaigning to rural voters is worth it and that disenfranchising them is a good idea as long as it benefits their view that Democrats will always hold a popular majority.

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:03:41 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#246812: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:02:21 PM

If, under a popular vote system, a candidate needed rural votes to win, then they would have to do that anyway.
Irrelevant, the problem is not that rural people have influence. The problem is that disproportionate influence.

Which is one of the reasons it's so hard to make things better and why the GOP don't need to be sane.

They're poor so they don't matter. Got it.

If you seriously think that not wanting rural people to have a disproportional influence for no-good reason that allows them to hold back progress and propagate the bigoted beliefs so common to such regions means that I think they don't matter because they're poor then frankly there's no much reason to continue interacting with you because you've either left the realm of rationality or are arguing in bad faith.

I have a simple belief about democracy. Democracy exists for the purposes of making sure your interests are represented by the state of which you are a part of. There is nothing inherently more valuable about 51,000 voters over 50,000 when the goal should be to represent all 101,000 voters' interests as best possible.
There is nothing democratic about ignoring the will of the actual people in-favor of the will of empty land.

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:03:35 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#246813: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:05:38 PM

If you seriously think that not wanting rural people to have a disproportional influence for no-good reason that allows them to hold back progress and propagate the bigoted beliefs so common to such regions means that I think they don't matter because they're poor then frankly there's no much reason to continue interacting with you because you've either left the realm of rationality or are arguing in bad faith.

You've said they're backward, ignorant, superstitious, and hold back progress along with a large number of other slurs based traditionally around hating on the poor. People who can't afford decent education, clothes, and for which life is a day to day struggle. You mock their beliefs and you talk about how they're bad guys.

I can't imagine WHY someone would think removing the Electoral College for something you suggest might be threatening to them.

There is nothing democratic about ignoring the will of the actual people in-favor of the will of empty land.

If their votes won't matter, which they won't under this system, then why should they be part of the Union?

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:07:27 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#246814: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:08:04 PM

Democrats can win the Electoral Vote....they have done in recent memory. They have done so by landslides.
Right. But as you know, the last two Republican presidents have been inaugurated with only the Electoral Vote. And I have no reason to believe that won't happen for the third, and the fourth, and so on. Because as the social, economic, political, cultural, and demographic aspects of the majority of Americans shift and change, the Electoral College does not.

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:11:08 PM by Eschaton

DrunkenNordmann from Exile Since: May, 2015
#246815: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:10:27 PM

Pretty sure I've once seen somebody do the math and apparently you could theoretically become president with only around 20 % of the popular vote.

How's that democratic?

Wish I could find the article again.

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:10:46 PM by DrunkenNordmann

We learn from history that we do not learn from history
Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#246816: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:10:43 PM

So what has Trump promised to do for rural states that continues to justify the existence of the EC?

And it's just 22%.

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:11:44 PM by Deadbeatloser22

"Yup. That tasted purple."
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#246817: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:12:08 PM

You've said they're backward, ignorant, superstitious, and hold back progress along with a large number of other slurs based traditionally around hating on the poor. People who can't afford decent education, clothes, and for which life is a day to day struggle. You mock their beliefs and you talk about how they're bad guys.

I'm poor. I live in a poor town in North Carolina that's being destroyed by the opiod epidemic and I can't drink my tap water because it's contaminated by the local Chemours plant.

Guess what? People here are still bigots and they've got no excuse for being so. Poverty does not excuse bigotry.

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:12:48 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#246818: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:13:44 PM

You've said they're backward, ignorant, superstitious, and hold back progress along with a large number of other slurs based traditionally around hating on the poor. People who can't afford decent education, clothes, and for which life is a day to day struggle. You mock their beliefs and you talk about how they're bad guys.
What? The only thing I said was that bigotry is common amongst rural regions (which is true) and that the idea that they're inherently virtuous is ant-intellectually nonsense (which it is).

Also yes, if they support people like the Republicans or Trump then they are being the bad guys.

Stop projecting your outrage onto me and address my actual arguments. Pathetic ad-hominems don't suit you.

I can't imagine WHY someone would think removing the Electoral College for something you suggest might be threatening to them.
<shrugs> If we look at developed democracies that don't use an electoral college equivalent (i.e all of them) you don't see rural regions being purged or treated worse. If you think I've been mean and that means the removal electoral college will hurt rural people you need to back that up with some actual evidence.

If their votes won't matter, which they won't under this system, then why should they be part of the Union?
You think their vote matters in this system? Tell me the last time a Presidential candidate visited Kentucky or Montana.

Also their votes will matter the exact same as anyone else, one person one vote.

Pretty sure I've once seen somebody do the math and apparently you could theoretically become president with only around 20 % of the popular vote.

How's that democratic?

Wish I could find the article again.

It's not.

The founders were deeply suspicious of popular will and thus wanted a psuedo-technocratic system that involves expertise (who all coincidentally were wealthy white men) instead of popular mandate. Which is why in the early days of the republic IIRC voting was restricted to landowning white men.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#246819: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:13:46 PM

Right. But as you know, the last two Republican presidents have been inaugurated with only the Electoral Vote. And I have no reason to believe that won't happen for the third, and the fourth, and so on. Because as the social, economic, political, cultural aspects of the majority of Americans shift and change, the Electoral College does not.

It just strikes me that people are going after the wrong target there. George W. Bush won his first term through voter fraud. The Electoral College didn't elect him. The destruction of large numbers of ballots in Florida did. Trump won through the fact a number of states voted for him which voted for Obama.

There's a lot of ways to address this from Democrats broadening their campaigns among states to help flip them, attacking the voter suppression of the Republican party, or if you want to be radical—abolishing the two party system.

But the thing about the Electoral College is that as long as the states are set up like mini-countries with their own Governors, Senates, and Legal Systems—the Electoral College plays a vital role in preserving the balance of power within states.

I just think if you did banish the Electoral College, it won't lead to a Democratic Paradise. Instead, I see the Republicans just campaigning heavier in Suburban Areas and beating the Whites Only Drum while continuing voter suppression. 5 million votes is a lot but not so much that it can't be undone as we saw with Bush.

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:16:41 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#246820: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:15:15 PM

Irrelevant, the problem is not that rural people have influence. The problem is that disproportionate influence.

To be clear, I was responding to Charles when I said that, not you. I agree that the influence is disproportionate, but I do feel that if we switch to a popular vote system, it will be the urban voters who receive the lion's share of the influence. And while they deserve a great deal of influence, since, well, that's where a large portion of our population lives, I don't think it's fair to ignore the voices of those in less-populated areas.

Also - and this is for the thread at large - do we really need all of the snappy comebacks and the snarky Youtube responses? Are those really conducive to a polite and productive discussion? Sometimes it feels like people are more just trying to prove that they're smarter than their opponents.

Oh God! Natural light!
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#246821: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:15:57 PM

For the record, there were more votes for Trump in Los Angeles county on its own than all of Montana and Idaho combined. The idea that cities are some monolithic blue titans is false.

edited 23rd Jun '18 3:16:47 PM by Parable

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#246822: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:16:40 PM

But less populated areas are still getting screwed by the electoral college. It's not a real solution to the problem.

Oh really when?
RainingMetal (Handed A Sword) Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#246823: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:16:58 PM

One deal with the Electoral College is that it determines a state's vote in a binary fashion; they either vote for one candidate or the other, which means there's no different outcome for a state that voted for a candidate by a landslide versus one that was more or less on the fence. That could lead to some serious misrepresentation.

ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#246824: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:17:28 PM

You think their vote matters in this system? Tell me the last time a Presidential candidate visited Kentucky or Montana.

I'm in this crowd here.

It was one of the defining moments of my life. My father explained to me Bill Clinton was someone who was "one of us" and appealing to the problems of Southern voters, the rural poor, and also people in cities. He was a "unifier."

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#246825: Jun 23rd 2018 at 3:21:05 PM

Nobody was implying that abolishing the Electoral College would solve all problems, or that voter suppression isn't a huge problem. You're presenting a false dichotomy.


Total posts: 417,856
Top