• Al Sharpton: The process that elected Trump was ‘not legitimate'
    83 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51685418]The system represents most people, or only 1 party. Its a shitty system but its the best one.[/QUOTE] or have it be proportionate instead of winner-takes-all
[QUOTE=Cone;51685448]or have it be proportionate instead of winner-takes-all[/QUOTE] Then you just have the popular vote.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51685418]Because if you let people vote as a whole, then large cities will be the deciding factors in elections. The whole state of ND, and others like it, would get no representation because of cities like NYC.[/QUOTE] NYC is 2.6% of the population of the USA how does that exactly drown out the voices of the rest of the country?
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51685418] Because if you let people vote as a whole, then large cities will be the deciding factors in elections. The whole state of ND, and others like it, would get no representation because of cities like NYC. The electoral college sucks but its a better system than the popular vote.[/QUOTE] What makes population density special when it comes to your vote? There are a million other factors how someone might belong in a minority so why are you singling out whether or not someone lives in a city to decide how much their vote should matter. Racial and sexual minorities encounter different kinds of problems in their day to day life than those who belong in the majority. Poor people have radically different lives and problems than rich people. Yet suddenly at city dwellers vs rural dwellers you draw the line and say that the minority should be louder (per person). Not to mention that it's not even a question of city dwellers vs rural people, it's populous states vs less populous states so if you happen to live in a small town in California, fuck you, you don't matter at all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51685463]NYC is 2.6% of the population of the USA how does that exactly drown out the voices of the rest of the country?[/QUOTE] NYC was an example, theres more than 1 large city in the US.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51685485]NYC was an example, theres more than 1 large city in the US.[/QUOTE] it's the biggest city in the USA if you combined every city in the USA that had a population of 1+ million (what i classify as a large city in this instance) you would have a total of 24 million 24 million is about 7.5% of the US population again, how would large cities be the deciding factor?
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;51685464]What makes population density special when it comes to your vote? There are a million other factors how someone might belong in a minority so why are you singling out whether or not someone lives in a city to decide how much their vote should matter. Racial and sexual minorities encounter different kinds of problems in their day to day life than those who belong in the majority. Poor people have radically different lives and problems than rich people. Yet suddenly at city dwellers vs rural dwellers you draw the line and say that the minority should be louder (per person). Not to mention that it's not even a question of city dwellers vs rural people, it's populous states vs less populous states so if you happen to live in a small town in California, fuck you, you don't matter at all.[/QUOTE] I never said that the minority should have a more effective vote. People who live in large cities and urban areas tend to vote more liberally, where as people in rural areas tend to vote more conservatively. The majority of the US population lives in urban areas, its not fair for the city populations to have complete control of the political spectrum. A person in the country doesnt have the same needs and wants as someone in a city, and vice versa.
[QUOTE=TheLonelyDonu;51684916]The illegitimacy that Sharpton is taking about is three-fold. First, Russia swayed public opinion in ways that cannot be measured due to their unprecedented nature and sheer size of influence. Second, Trump was elected by a net 3,000,000 minority of voters. Third, the "bullshit process that ignores the will of the people" for exactly that. The Electoral College failed in its mission to preserve the core tenets of democracy in electing an unqualified, irresponsible, lying, self-serving, shifty, conniving, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic corporatist pawn and Reagan-era capitalist. He is illegitimate for these reasons. Rev. Al Sharpton is a controversial person, but I agree with him.[/QUOTE] the entire point of democracy is that if people want to vote in a racist fascist, then they can do so if you don't like it then you are not vouching for democracy (before you respond with how the minority vote won, your system of democracy relies on the electoral college, and they did everything by the books)
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51685506]I never said that the minority should have a more effective vote. People who live in large cities and urban areas tend to vote more liberally, where as people in rural areas tend to vote more conservatively. The majority of the US population lives in urban areas, its not fair for the city populations to have complete control of the political spectrum. A person in the country doesnt have the same needs and wants as someone in a city, and vice versa.[/QUOTE] If people who live in urban areas tend to vote more liberally, and the majority of the US population lives in urban areas, doesn't that mean that the majority of the US population tends to vote more liberally?
[QUOTE=Egevened;51685521]the entire point of democracy is that if people want to vote in a racist fascist, then they can do so if you don't like it then you are not vouching for democracy (before you respond with how the minority vote won, your system of democracy relies on the electoral college, and they did everything by the books)[/QUOTE] "doing everything by the books" doesn't make it any more democratic
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51685506]I never said that the minority should have a more effective vote. People who live in large cities and urban areas tend to vote more liberally, where as people in rural areas tend to vote more conservatively. The majority of the US population lives in urban areas, its not fair for the city populations to have complete control of the political spectrum. A person in the country doesnt have the same needs and wants as someone in a city, and vice versa.[/QUOTE] A poor person does not have the same wants and needs as a rich person. A black person does not have the same wants and needs as a white person. A gay person does not have the same wants and needs as a straight person. A person working in IT does not have the same wants and needs as a person who works as a waiter. How is population density anything but an arbitrary distinction when you have so many different subsections of the population who tend to vote in the same vein? The only thing electoral college actually succeeds at is making it easier for Republicans to win presidential elections.
Additionally, going by the figures from this: [url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0763098.html[/url] The population of the top 34 cities (every city above 500,000 in population) combined comes to less than 30 million out of the total US population of 320 That means that less than 10% of the US population lives in a large city/the top 34 cities (i.e above 500,000) in other words i fail to see how that represents a massive swing, especially when it's extremely unlikely that they will all vote monolithically [editline]17th January 2017[/editline] the idea that if the electoral college were abolished that the urban centres would drown out the rest of the country is pure bullshit
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51685506]I never said that the minority should have a more effective vote. People who live in large cities and urban areas tend to vote more liberally, where as people in rural areas tend to vote more conservatively. The majority of the US population lives in urban areas, its not fair for the city populations to have complete control of the political spectrum. A person in the country doesnt have the same needs and wants as someone in a city, and vice versa.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't a better solution to this problem be to increase the number of representatives in our government so that these disenfranchised people are actually represented?
[QUOTE=Numpers;51685272]Are California and New York "The will of the people?" Should smaller states get their voices drowned out even further?[/QUOTE] Don't smaller states already have representatives and senators to speak more directly for them? And last I checked Congress had a lot more say in what laws/budgets get passed than the President does, so how their voices would be drowned out isn't clear to me. [editline]17th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;51685525]If people who live in urban areas tend to vote more liberally, and the majority of the US population lives in urban areas, doesn't that mean that the majority of the US population tends to vote more liberally?[/QUOTE] Except as Sobotnik pointed out, the majority of the population doesn't live in urban areas. A huge portion of the total population live in scattered little Bumshart, Nowhere towns.
The US population, although a majority of it is indeed urban, the population required to make a place urban is very low: [url]https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/uafaq.html[/url] [quote]The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas: Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people; Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.[/quote] The bulk of what constitutes as "urban" population consists of the myriad of the hundreds of smaller towns and cities that have less than say 500,000 but more than 2,500 [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States[/url] About 80% of the US population is "urban". The vast bulk of that figure lives in a range that covers medium-small cities all the way down to villages which happen to have a few thousand people. There is a massive world of difference between a city like New York (which has 8 million residents) and Riley, Indiana (which has about 3000) - yet both are classified as urban
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51685054]Trump agrees that this election wasn't legitimate though [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664[/media][/QUOTE] "I also won the popular vote if you deduct all the people who didn't vote for me."
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51685418]The Mexican deal is legitimate, but the tapes are 10 years old,[/QUOTE] Why does it matter that the tape is 10 years old? [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51685506]A person in the country doesnt have the same needs and wants as someone in a city, and vice versa.[/QUOTE] Everyone who is in the minority has different needs and wants than the majority; that's why you take a vote, to figure out which opinion best represents the population. Why does it matter that they live in the country? You can make your exact same argument for people of color. Why should their vote be drowned out by the majority of white people?
-snip-
[QUOTE=TestECull;51684755]The process that elected him is legitimate. It's the one specified in the Constitution of the United States of America. Yes, it's a bullshit process that conveniently ignores the will of the people and allows shitheads like Trump the oval office, but it's legit. For better or worse we have a Trump Dump steaming up Capitol Hill. We need to stop crying foul about the election and start poking all the dem, indy, and moderate GOP congressmen to do everything in their power to stall Trump's dumbassery. They can do so, they just need to be spurred into action.[/QUOTE] From a different viewpoint though, democrats and minorities have been forced into smaller and smaller districts through gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics such as deregistering people from the polls, and enacting further barriers to voting certainly would seem like tipping the scales one way, especially since trump ended up winning by less than 100,000 votes in several states
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51685054]Trump agrees that this election wasn't legitimate though [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664[/media][/QUOTE] For all the ripping you do on Trump supporters (especially Tudd), you sure do like to grasp for straws just as much as you call others out on it. I didn't say anything about supporting Trump, anything about Trump at all, yet you still twisted it around in your head and took my post as "oh he means he supports the system and Trump". Dude, you are way out of touch.
I actually just like to make fun of Trump.
[QUOTE=Robman8908;51686190]For all the ripping you do on Trump supporters (especially Tudd), you sure do like to grasp for straws just as much as you call others out on it. I didn't say anything about supporting Trump, anything about Trump at all, yet you still twisted it around in your head and took my post as "oh he means he supports the system and Trump". Dude, you are way out of touch.[/QUOTE] He wasn't calling you out though? He was just making a point about Trump's belief that there was illegitimacy involved.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51684970]Not even a whole day had passed and Farage was already trying to remove his name from the "£350m /w for the NHS" bus claim. Despite there being pictures of him campaigning with it. Despite him supporting the guys who campaigned with it. Despite him never calling that number in the question before. Mere hours had passed and he was already trying to shift blame and distort reality. Populists all happen to be awful people, who'd have thought?[/QUOTE] Fun fact: the vote leave campaign really did not like Farage
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51686218]He wasn't calling you out though? He was just making a point about Trump's belief that there was illegitimacy involved.[/QUOTE] I didn't say anything about Trump, though. That's the point.
[QUOTE=Goberfish;51686251]Fun fact: the vote leave campaign really did not like Farage[/QUOTE] I get that a bit tbh. The leave campaign was essentially two campaigns after all. One campaigning entirely on "UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS!! IMMIGRANT HORDES!!!" and the other on "We can stand on our own two legs just fine guys! We swear! (we just request a bit of preferential treatment like all the benefits with none of the regulation :~) ) It's not hard to work out which side he was pushing more. The more official campaign were right to dislike the animated Thunderbirds puppet.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51685538]Additionally, going by the figures from this: [url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0763098.html[/url] The population of the top 34 cities (every city above 500,000 in population) combined comes to less than 30 million out of the total US population of 320 That means that less than 10% of the US population lives in a large city/the top 34 cities (i.e above 500,000) in other words i fail to see how that represents a massive swing, especially when it's extremely unlikely that they will all vote monolithically [editline]17th January 2017[/editline] the idea that if the electoral college were abolished that the urban centres would drown out the rest of the country is pure bullshit[/QUOTE] Now, instead of going by total population, which is misleading, use the figures for registered voters, aka the people who vote.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;51685532]The only thing electoral college actually succeeds at is making it easier for Republicans to win presidential elections.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Which is why they don't want to get rid of it, and you can be sure they'll conjure up every bullshit argument imaginable to defend its existence. It's like Trump claiming in 2012 that it was "a disaster for a democracy" on Twitter because Romney lost to Obama (although it wouldn't have mattered since Obama defeated Romney overwhelmingly in the popular vote anyway). But then when it handed the election over to him instead of Clinton, it was suddenly hailed by him as being "genius". Fucking pathetic. The Republicans in modern times are the only ones who have benefited from it. Gore defeated Bush by more than 543,000 votes in the 2000 election before the EC stepped in and handed it to Bush anyway. Clinton actually defeated Trump by almost 2.9 million votes before the same thing happened. It's the fifth time in our nation's history that this has happened, and it needs to stop. "But what about the states." Fuck that argument. Determining who becomes president is not a state-by-state matter, it's a national matter-- and that's why it should be simple: one person = one vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins. The American people as individuals cast their vote and decide, not a handful of electors representing their states. "But the states won't be fairly represented if you do that." Yes they will. Again: the president is not there to represent each individual state, he's there to represent the entire country. The House and Senate candidates which each individual state elects to serve as their representatives in Congress are supposed to do this-- not the president. The EC does not actually do anything useful for deciding who becomes president except serve as an exploit measure for the Republicans. It needs to be abolished.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51686792]Now, instead of going by total population, which is misleading, use the figures for registered voters, aka the people who vote.[/QUOTE] the proportions are going to be similar though. the electorate is going to be broadly similar to the total population, just smaller and on average it will be older, taller, heavier, and subjected to more education (for obvious reasons) if 80% of the population is urban, its more likely than not that 80% of voters are going to be urban as well, give or take a few [editline]18th January 2017[/editline] also virtually all of the modern arguments in favour of the electoral college are said postfacto in a hundred years from now, none of the arguments used in the 18th century nor in the 21st century will be used to defend the electoral college, but they will have invented new ones to defend it then as society changes you can tell its a failed institution when none of the arguments for its existence are largely applied to temporary situations. imagine in 2200 when florida is underwater yet it still elects 29 electors because of some bullshit about how florida requires more representation because its in severe difficulty and politicians need to help it
[QUOTE=TheLonelyDonu;51684916]The illegitimacy that Sharpton is taking about is three-fold. First, Russia swayed public opinion in ways that cannot be measured due to their unprecedented nature and sheer size of influence. Second, Trump was elected by a net 3,000,000 minority of voters. Third, the "bullshit process that ignores the will of the people" for exactly that. The Electoral College failed in its mission to preserve the core tenets of democracy in electing an unqualified, irresponsible, lying, self-serving, shifty, conniving, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic corporatist pawn and Reagan-era capitalist. He is illegitimate for these reasons. Rev. Al Sharpton is a controversial person, but I agree with him.[/QUOTE] And all that is totally irrelevant because Trump was elected as per the rules set out in the US Constitution governing the elections. Do I agree that he should have won? Hell no, I wouldn't trust that fool to lead a wagon around a garden, much less one of the most powerful countries in the world. Do I agree with the Electoral college? Hell no, it makes me feel disenfranchised on account of living in a state so hardcore GOP that they call it at 7:15pm with 5 precints reporting every election cycle. But that's how the dominoes fell last November, and like it or not, [i]he is president.[/i]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51686835]the proportions are going to be similar though. the electorate is going to be broadly similar to the total population, just smaller and on average it will be older, taller, heavier, and subjected to more education (for obvious reasons) if 80% of the population is urban, its more likely than not that 80% of voters are going to be urban as well, give or take a few [editline]18th January 2017[/editline] also virtually all of the modern arguments in favour of the electoral college are said postfacto in a hundred years from now, none of the arguments used in the 18th century nor in the 21st century will be used to defend the electoral college, but they will have invented new ones to defend it then as society changes[/QUOTE] I could be wrong here, but I don't think that voter density is proportional to population density.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.