[video=youtube;ZlwbTUs-17k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlwbTUs-17k[/video]
That ending probably triggers Americans.
I thought this was common knowledge in america and im from alabama
The only real trigger is that guy's hair.
he does not have the skull for that hair.
The electoral college is mostly a non-problem, they've never went against the popular vote as a whole and aren't ever likely to, it's political suicide to vote against your state.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49086855]they've never went against the popular vote as a whole[/QUOTE]
uh, they did?
He should of stuck to criticizing the TSA, I don't view the electoral college as being blatantly against the popular vote.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49086872]uh, they did?[/QUOTE]
I think the vice-president thing is a bit of a nitpick. The biased voting system in states is more of a problem, and should of focused more on the gerrymandering aspects of elections.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49086872]uh, they did?[/QUOTE]
Not in the modern day. The electoral college was made purely because they didn't think the people were intelligent enough to vote for a decent leader, so the electoral college would sometimes vote in what they thought to be a better candidate. Point is, the government of the post-20th century is far more trusting of its people and it doesn't really happen anymore.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49086855]The electoral college is mostly a non-problem, they've never went against the popular vote as a whole and aren't ever likely to, it's political suicide to vote against your state.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/[/url]
[editline]10th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=cdr248;49086905]Not in the modern day. The electoral college was made purely because they didn't think the people were intelligent enough to vote for a decent leader, so the electoral college would sometimes vote in what they thought to be a better candidate. Point is, the government of the post-20th century is far more trusting of its people and it doesn't really happen anymore.[/QUOTE]
2000 is pretty modern. Al Gore had half a million more votes in the popular vote but Bush won electoral college 271 vs. 266. can you imagine Bernie losing because of 5 electoral college votes?
[QUOTE=cdr248;49086855]The electoral college is mostly a non-problem, they've never went against the popular vote as a whole and aren't ever likely to, it's political suicide to vote against your state.[/QUOTE]
Uh, they did. More than 70 times in fact. We should really change the system anyways, because there are quite a few downsides to it, such as the fact that some people's votes are worth more than others, and the fact that it's a winner take all system.
If you don't believe this video, maybe a CGP Grey video might convince you:
[video=youtube;7wC42HgLA4k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k[/video]
[QUOTE=cdr248;49086855]The electoral college is mostly a non-problem, they've never went against the popular vote as a whole and aren't ever likely to, it's political suicide to vote against your state.[/QUOTE]
Really the problem with it isn't so much the college itself but the way certain states handle it. If every state just handed its electoral votes proportionately it'd be fine since then the ratio of electoral votes would be identical to the ratio of popular votes. The problem arises that some states give all their electoral votes to the candidate that gets the majority, so if you get 51/100 then you're counted as getting that full 100, this has the potential to massively tip the scales, memory serving there are 11 states a presidential candidate can win in and thus still win the election even if they lose all 39 other states.
Is there anyone that actually supports the Electoral College?
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;49087095]Is there anyone that actually supports the Electoral College?[/QUOTE]
cdr248 apparently...
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;49087095]Is there anyone that actually supports the Electoral College?[/QUOTE]
I do because it gives power to the lesser populated states. Going off popular vote would just make LA, New England cities, DFW, Chicago, etc. Have extensive voting power while states such as Idaho, N/S Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska might as well just not count towards anything
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49087186]I do because it gives power to the lesser populated states. Going off popular vote would just make LA, New England cities, DFW, Chicago, etc. Have extensive voting power while states such as Idaho, N/S Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska might as well just not count towards anything[/QUOTE]
Yeah, instead you have millions of people who have no voting power just because they live near other people.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49087113]cdr248 apparently...[/QUOTE]
I don't support it, I just don't think it's a huge democracy killer. At this point it doesn't really [I]need [/I]to exist but technically it also doesn't need to go [I]now, now, now.[/I]
Take it or leave it, I don't think it matters either way.
[editline]9th November 2015[/editline]
On the other hand, gerrymandering and filibuster abuse are problems that are far more relevant right now. The electoral college hardly causes that much trouble but Gerrymandering has been fucking constant in screwing the people over in terms of representation. IMO, those are the things that deserve the focus and effort of our government.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49087186]I do because it gives power to the lesser populated states. Going off popular vote would just make LA, New England cities, DFW, Chicago, etc. Have extensive voting power while states such as Idaho, N/S Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska might as well just not count towards anything[/QUOTE]
Why do you want some states to have more voting power than other states? All US citizens should have the same voting power when voting for president, regardless of where they reside in.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49086939]Uh, they did. More than 70 times in fact. We should really change the system anyways, because there are quite a few downsides to it, such as the fact that some people's votes are worth more than others, and the fact that it's a winner take all system.
If you don't believe this video, maybe a CGP Grey video might convince you:
[video=youtube;7wC42HgLA4k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k[/video][/QUOTE]
The point of giving smaller states more voting power was to protect minority opinions [sp]as well as compromising with smaller states to accept the Virginia plan[/sp]
It's definitely not a perfect method and it's issues would probably just be fixed by leaving it to popular vote but I don't honestly see it as that much of a problem to get fumed about.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49087186]I do because it gives power to the lesser populated states. Going off popular vote would just make LA, New England cities, DFW, Chicago, etc. Have extensive voting power while states such as Idaho, N/S Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska might as well just not count towards anything[/QUOTE]
Except it wouldn't. Going between even the TOP NINE FUCKING HUNDRED cities would only get you to 20% of the population. You can't just bus between New York, Chicago and LA. Just watch the video I posted above. And besides, the small states don't count anyways. All of those states you mentioned received zero candidate visitations in the last election. And honestly why should they matter? If we switched to a popular vote system, those people's votes would be equal to eveyone else. States aren't as big a thing as everyone thinks they are. If it weren't for the fact that we were a confederation before we wrote the Constitution, I guarantee you they'd be called provinces.
[editline]9th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=cdr248;49087551]The point of giving smaller states more voting power was to protect minority opinions [sp]as well as compromising with smaller states to accept the Virginia plan[/sp]
It's definitely not a perfect method and it's issues would probably just be fixed by leaving it to popular vote but I don't honestly see it as that much of a problem to get fumed about.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, that's kind of stupid. Minority opinions should be protected, and guess what, they are by a little thing called the Bill of Rights, but the thing is having a minority rule over a majority is much much worse than having a majority rule over a minority.
And you're right, in the bigger picture, the Electoral College isn't that big of an issue since it's only used to elect one person and still gets pretty good results, but it still is one and should still be taking into consideration. You can focus on more than one thing you know?
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49087827] If it weren't for the fact that we were a confederation before we wrote the Constitution, I guarantee you they'd be called provinces.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying, "If the United States wasn't the United States, then it wouldn't be the United States."
The states play multiple key roles.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49086855]The electoral college is mostly a non-problem, they've never went against the popular vote as a whole and aren't ever likely to, it's political suicide to vote against your state.[/QUOTE]
Electors aren't an elected position. It's not political suicide to vote against your state, because they aren't actually politicians. They're chosen at the discretion of the winning political party. They are, however, chosen under close scrutiny by that political party, so there's very little chance of a rogue elector. The real concern though is how all but two states are winner-take-all in terms of elector votes. There is zero difference in a state between a candidate winning 100% of the vote, or 51% of the vote. This means that any political minorities within a state have no effect at all on the ultimate result of the election. This is why Al Gore lost when more Americans actually wanted him as president. If that's not a prime example of the electoral college severely impeding democracy I don't know what is.
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;49087477]Why do you want some states to have more voting power than other states? All US citizens should have the same voting power when voting for president, regardless of where they reside in.[/QUOTE]
Is it wrong to think that areas of with a higher population should get more representation? Thats the key question here.
"No shit of course more people should get more representation" doesn't seem to cut it for some people. :pudge:
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49088694]Is it wrong to think that areas of with a higher population should get more representation? Thats the key question here.
"No shit of course more people should get more representation" doesn't seem to cut it for some people. :pudge:[/QUOTE]
It's more like, what is the issue with keeping cities/states out of the equation altogether and count each individual citizen's vote towards X candidate?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49087186]I do because it gives power to the lesser populated states. . . . states such as Idaho, N/S Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska might as well just not count towards anything[/QUOTE]
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.
Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
Now, the 11 most populous states (with over 270 electoral votes), by themselves, containing 56% of the population of the United States, could determine the Presidency.
[editline]10th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49087186]. . . Going off popular vote would just make LA, New England cities, DFW, Chicago, etc. Have extensive voting power . . .[/QUOTE]
In a successful nationwide election for President candidates could not afford campaigning only in metropolitan areas, while ignoring rural areas.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.
The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city.
For example, in Ohio—the single state that received over a quarter (73 of 253) of all of the 2012 general-election campaign events (and a similar fraction of advertising expenditures),
the candidates campaigned in various parts of the state essentially in proportion to its population.
● The 4 biggest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Ohio have 53.9% of the state’s population and received 52.1% of the state’s 73 campaign events in 2012—slightly less than their share of the population (but very close to their percentage of the population). They voted 54% Democratic.
● The 7 medium-sized metro areas have 23.6% of the state’s population and received 23.3% of the campaign events—almost exactly in proportion of(or to?) their population. They voted 52% Democratic.
● The 53 remaining counties (that is, the rural counties lying outside the state’s 11 MSAs) have 22% of the state’s population and received 25% of the campaign events—slightly more than their share of the population (but very close to their percentage of the population). They voted 58% Republican
In a nationwide election, as in statewide elections for governor and U.S. Senators, and elections for President in battleground states, candidates would campaign everywhere in proportion to the number of votes.
In a nationwide election for President, candidates would campaign everywhere—big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas—in proportion to the number of votes, just as they now do in only the handful of battleground states.
[editline]10th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;49087095]Is there anyone that actually supports the Electoral College?[/QUOTE]
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
[url]www.NationalPopularVote.com[/url]
[editline]10th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;49087092]Really the problem with it isn't so much the college itself but the way certain states handle it. If every state just handed its electoral votes proportionately it'd be fine since then the ratio of electoral votes would be identical to the ratio of popular votes. The problem arises that some states give all their electoral votes to the candidate that gets the majority, so if you get 51/100 then you're counted as getting that full 100, this has the potential to massively tip the scales, memory serving there are 11 states a presidential candidate can win in and thus still win the election even if they lose all 39 other states.[/QUOTE]
48 states use a winner-take-all method and 2 use a district winner method of awarding electoral votes.
Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.
It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and
It would not make every vote equal.
It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes—1%, 2%, or 3%. As a matter of practical politics, only one electoral vote would be in play in almost all states. A system that requires even a 9% share of the popular vote in order to win one electoral vote is fundamentally out of sync with the small-percentage vote shifts that are involved in real-world presidential campaigns.
If a current battleground state, like Colorado, were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.
The proportional method also easily could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of 270 electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal.
It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
[editline]10th November 2015[/editline]
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
In 2004: “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out . . . that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.”
There were 10 battleground states in 2012.
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
In 2012, more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.
Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.
Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.
A candidate has won the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.
After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
[editline]10th November 2015[/editline]
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
[url]http://www.NationalPopularVote.com[/url]
We know our country is fucked up. You don't have to keep telling us lol
can we stop posting this guy's videos or reacting like what he says isn't sort of common knowledge.
seriously he doesn't say anything people shouldn't already know, and its just overacted
[editline]10th November 2015[/editline]
the way to fix the electoral college is to cut down on gerrymandering through independent redistricting committees (they can still be partisan, but they're usually explicitly written to prevent an overwhelming partisan majority), then pass proportional vote laws, which are sort of inevitable at this point because the amount of states using them grows each election
[QUOTE=Sableye;49092298]can we stop posting this guy's videos or reacting like what he says isn't sort of common knowledge.
seriously he doesn't say anything people shouldn't already know, and its just overacted
[editline]10th November 2015[/editline]
the way to fix the electoral college is to cut down on gerrymandering through independent redistricting committees (they can still be partisan, but they're usually explicitly written to prevent an overwhelming partisan majority), then pass proportional vote laws, which are sort of inevitable at this point because the amount of states using them grows each election[/QUOTE]
Except he does actually provide some interesting topics that many people don't know about, such as the bullshit diamond ring, the security theater that goes on in our country, and other stuff like that. I'm sorry we can't all be as enlightened as you.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49097529]then people should post vids not done by obnoxious buzzfeed-tier e-celebs[/QUOTE]
this, this is exactly why i hate this, the content isn't particularly interesting, but this guy is just a walking buzzfeed article saying "hey i'm smart becuz i know this stuff"
everyone should know diamonds are stupidly overpriced, we can manufacture diamonds today for a fraction of the cost of the naturally made thing, but companies like de beers keeps the stigma against artificial diamonds up because it would ruin them, and they probably shouldn't use one buzzfeed tier guy as their sole source of knowledge on these issues
[QUOTE=cdr248;49086855]The electoral college is mostly a non-problem, they've never went against the popular vote as a whole and aren't ever likely to, it's political suicide to vote against your state.[/QUOTE]
2000 Al Gore got the popular vote but Bush won and we know how that ended up.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;49099278]2000 Al Gore got the popular vote but Bush won and we know how that ended up.[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was this not because more important states got the votes needed? Adam, of course talked about this, but a lot of what he discussed were non issues.
Biased amounts of seats, creating "swing states" that can decide elections is the real issue here, and its systemic.
Gerrymandering is usually shifting a line on a district a few blocks at most, but it can decide the way counties and, if broad enough, entire states vote. Splitting a known ghetto into 3 districts instead of offering them one, solid voice in a major issue. Same goes for wealthy, historically Republican districts, too. Both parties engage in these tactics to try and secure their dominance, but its not well known. [mostly because both parties are guilty]
Instead, it seems he kind of brushed over the subject and straight into politics from the mid 1700s. While such things are important, if change is to be made, these contemporary issues need further examination; instead of nitpicking one or two incidents.
This might be asking a bit much from Adam, but considering he absolutely nailed the TSA to a wall, he has, or at least the writers the skits use, are well capable of such roasts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
