Electoral college members inundated by harassing phone calls, emails, and death threats - Polidicks

I feel like people assume that people are protesting just because the democratic party lost but no it's actually because donald trump is fucking awful

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51549868]I feel like people assume that people are protesting just because the democratic party lost but no it's actually because donald trump is fucking awful[/QUOTE] Also it doesn't have to just be sour grapes the electoral college can also just be fucking awful in general regardless of what side you're on

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51549877]Also it doesn't have to just be sour grapes the electoral college can also just be fucking awful in general regardless of what side you're on[/QUOTE] Another issue that's also blamed on the Electoral College is what you said, the electoral vote doesn't match the popular vote. But that's not the EC's fault, it's because 48 states are 'winner takes all', which is why things like battleground states even exist. It's easy to blame the Federal Government for that, but it's actually a state problem.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51549935]Another issue that's also blamed on the Electoral College is what you said, the electoral vote doesn't match the popular vote. But that's not the EC's fault, it's because 48 states are 'winner takes all', which is why things like battleground states even exist. It's easy to blame the Federal Government for that, but it's actually a state problem.[/QUOTE] And the problem is that there's no incentive for the states that matter to make the vote proportional. Maine and Nebraska made moves towards that, thankfully, but if California made it proportional they'd effectively be surrendering 20+ electoral votes for no selfish political gain. Same with Texas. The EC needs to be made proportional to the population, rather than the representatives, and all states need to adopt proportional voting. This would maintain the safeguards that exist against demagoguery (which might not even be necessary considering a system like this would have Clinton winning by millions), but it would bring the EC vote to closer proportion with the popular vote. This isn't even a partisan issue. Obama won the EC vote by like over 60% in 2012, despite only getting barely 51% of the popular vote. How is that fair? Any Republican who lives in a blue state and any Democrat who lives in a red state should be screaming for actual representation in the presidential election - because currently, their votes are meaningless. Proportional voting that splits the actual EC votes in relation to how the state population voted, combined with apportionment of EC votes in actual proportion to population, would eliminate this entire issue and would make votes more fair for both parties in the future.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51549702]Yes, space1, I'm sure you, a ~16 year old kid, are [I]way[/I] more intelligent and [I]intellectual[/I] than everyone else. God, if only all the other voters were as [I]intellectual[/I] as you, right?[/QUOTE] I'm 20, thank you very much. I would prefer to have a civil discussion about this rather than being at eachother's necks. To make my point more obvious, would you rather defend yourself at a murder trial and likely go to jail? Or would you like to hire someone whose very job is to defend other people do it for you?

Man, the media has really been ripping into the left with this kind of stuff recently. Not that it isn't warranted, but the entire Democratic party just seems like a total shitshow because of this fringe activity. My heart goes out to any leftist who is stereotyped because of this story and others like it.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51550135]Man, the media has really been ripping into the left with this kind of stuff recently. Not that it isn't warranted, but the entire Democratic party just seems like a total shitshow because of this fringe activity. My heart goes out to any leftist who is stereotyped because of this story and others like it.[/QUOTE] Can we stop pretending this is a Left / Right issue and admit that some people are just assholes, regardless of their political beliefs?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51550368]Can we stop pretending this is a Left / Right issue and admit that some people are just assholes, regardless of their political beliefs?[/QUOTE] Seriously, Idiocy is Bipartisan.

[QUOTE=zizzleplix;51549709] Also I wonder, are people getting heated about the electoral college because they've always been critical of the electoral college or is it because they're just upset their preferred candidate lost?[/QUOTE] I think it's more the fact that the US currently stands to get a president who's done everything to prove that he shouldn't be president. Or maybe I'm just crazy, who knows.

At this point Trump not being elected as President would just cause riots and murders and stuff.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51550464]At this point Trump not being elected as President would just cause riots and murders and stuff.[/QUOTE] Like others have said, it'll most likely be a shit show either way.

[QUOTE=WhichStrider;51550468]Like others have said, it'll most likely be a shit show either way.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but if Trump fucks up in office at least it will prove to everyone that being a moron doesn't work. If he isn't elected he will look like an oppressed underdog which will only make things worse.

I really don't understand people who send death threats to people. Very often when you hear about them, it seems completely counter even to the point they're trying to make. Isn't it fairly obvious that if a liberal calls a republican, insults and threatens them, that they're not going to suddenly turn liberal? The fuck are they even trying to accomplish? [QUOTE=Monkah;51549470]The word 'democracy' is not the same thing as the word 'popular vote'.[/QUOTE] No, but 'popular vote' is [I]better[/I] than the abomination of the electoral college system. I'm tired of seeing this discussion about whether this or that qualifies as "democracy" or "democratic republic" or whatever, when the bottom line is that [I]this system is bad[/I], because it discourages voters from voting and gives some voters more power than others for no good reason. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=space1;51549652]So you'd rather a bunch of uneducated idiots(the general public) elect the president? The popular vote is [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority[/URL][/QUOTE] These are actually arguments against the core idea of democracy. Nevermind the fact that if you do believe these arguments, they apply just as well to the individual states as they do to a hypothetical nationwide vote. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] There's literally no solution to this [I]"tyranny of the majority"[/I] idea, unless you want explicitly to have the minority rule, or if you create new nations every time there's an issue that divides a nation. You can only mitigate it by having things like a transferable vote and a system that isn't winner-takes-all. Just have the electoral votes from each state be proportional to the vote in that state and hey presto - instant better representation of the will of the people, technical political terminology be damned.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51550510]Yeah, but if Trump fucks up in office at least it will prove to everyone that being a moron doesn't work. If he isn't elected he will look like an oppressed underdog which will only make things worse.[/QUOTE] But then you'll have people too afraid/prideful to admit they voted in a shitty person, and will blindly support their candidate anyways. "Oh it's not [I]that[/I] bad!" "Well, he's still better than Hillary!"

Really shows how broken things are in this country when the Electors are getting death threats for doing their damn jobs, honestly now I'm just hoping for Trump to get into office because it'd mean all this bitching and moaning was for absolutely nothing.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51551095] These are actually arguments against the core idea of democracy. Nevermind the fact that if you do believe these arguments, they apply just as well to the individual states as they do to a hypothetical nationwide vote. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] There's literally no solution to this [I]"tyranny of the majority"[/I] idea, unless you want explicitly to have the minority rule, or if you create new nations every time there's an issue that divides a nation. You can only mitigate it by having things like a transferable vote and a system that isn't winner-takes-all. Just have the electoral votes from each state be proportional to the vote in that state and hey presto - instant better representation of the will of the people, technical political terminology be damned.[/QUOTE] Is Democracy the right way to go about things? There's definitely more options than Democracy, Fascism, and Communism, that's for sure.

[QUOTE=space1;51551515]Is Democracy the right way to go about things? There's definitely more options than Democracy, Fascism, and Communism, that's for sure.[/QUOTE] Communism is a mode (or collection of modes) of economic distribution. It is not a political system in and of itself.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;51550456]I think it's more the fact that the US currently stands to get a president who's done everything to prove that he shouldn't be president. Or maybe I'm just crazy, who knows.[/QUOTE] I don't like that Trump got elected either (for obvious reasons) but there are people who seem to be critical towards the electoral college now simply because it didn't go in their favor and not out of any genuine belief that the electoral college system is flawed. That if the tables were turned (Hilary won and Trump lost), it's unlikely they would be so critical towards the electoral college and would call Trump supporters bitter and angry.

[QUOTE=space1;51551515]Is Democracy the right way to go about things? There's definitely more options than Democracy, Fascism, and Communism, that's for sure.[/QUOTE] democracy is the worst form of government ever created, but that's excepting every other form of government

[QUOTE=zizzleplix;51551544]I don't like that Trump got elected either (for obvious reasons) [b]but there are people who seem to be critical towards the electoral college now simply because it didn't go in their favor and not out of any genuine belief that the electoral college system is flawed[/b]. That if the tables were turned (Hilary won and Trump lost), it's unlikely they would be so critical towards the electoral college and would call Trump supporters bitter and angry.[/QUOTE] Examples please?

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;51551524]Communism is a mode (or collection of modes) of economic distribution. It is not a political system in and of itself.[/QUOTE] But the two are so intertwined that that it profoundly impacts the way society is set up. The problem with socialism and communism isn't that the government has involvement with the economy, it's how they're involved. Being that they control the means of production and all, it removes any separation in society between the upper class and the ruling class. The way I see it, it's a modern version of feudalism. [editline]19th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;51551580]democracy is the worst form of government ever created, but that's excepting every other form of government[/QUOTE] I know, right? Psst, here's an alternative that doesn't sound awful; [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy[/URL] I know it's not without problems, but you can't deny that people who know what they're doing deciding the laws regarding their field kinda makes sense, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=space1;51551781]I know, right? Psst, here's an alternative that doesn't sound awful; [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy[/URL] I know it's not without problems, but you can't deny that people who know what they're doing deciding the laws regarding their field kinda makes sense, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] so basically china?

[QUOTE=zizzleplix;51551544]I don't like that Trump got elected either (for obvious reasons) but there are people who seem to be critical towards the electoral college now simply because it didn't go in their favor and not out of any genuine belief that the electoral college system is flawed. That if the tables were turned (Hilary won and Trump lost), it's unlikely they would be so critical towards the electoral college and would call Trump supporters bitter and angry.[/QUOTE] There's an obvious reason for this- Hillary is not a demagogue, and cannot be considered to have the same competence and intellectual issues in government as Trump will.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51551836]so basically china?[/QUOTE] China is not a technocracy, it's a fascist regime in socialist's clothing. Please at least try to read things and understand them rather than just making short pointless comments.

[QUOTE=space1;51552027]China is not a technocracy, it's a fascist regime in socialist's clothing. Please at least try to read things and understand them rather than just making short pointless comments.[/QUOTE] virtually everyone in the communist party and in the ruling organs of the chinese government hold a qualification in some kind of scientific or engineering background. a great deal of chinese policymaking treats issues in the country (even social ones) as a kind of engineering problem to be solved. if you want an example of technocracy in practice, china is a very good example of it also fascist italy was partially technocratic so i don't get how they can exclude one another

[QUOTE=space1;51551781]I know, right? Psst, here's an alternative that doesn't sound awful; [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy[/URL] I know it's not without problems, but you can't deny that people who know what they're doing deciding the laws regarding their field kinda makes sense, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] It does until you consider the implications of certain groups deregulating things in order to bolster themselves at the expense of others, which is kinda-sorta the "democracy" we have now in the form of lobbyists and politicians in the pockets of businessmen.

[QUOTE=space1;51552027]China is not a technocracy, it's a fascist regime in socialist's clothing. Please at least try to read things and understand them rather than just making short pointless comments.[/QUOTE] The PRC is a single-party/unitary socialist republic. Calling it "fascist" is blatantly wrong from an actual political science perspective. Little background on some of the parts of the PRC's governmental system: At the county level, registered members of the Communist Party can vote for representatives in the People's Congress, who oversee the operations of local government within that county. Those county-level representatives vote for the members of the Provincial/Municipal People's Congress. Those representatives elect the members of the National People's Congress. The political process in the PRC involves a democratic voting system, even though very limited and exclusive to members of the CPC (still a fairly decently-sized chunk of the population). Economically, fascism is all about encouraging [I]private ownership of capital[/I], usually by appointing business leaders to positions in government. The PRC is the absolute opposite - something like 40% of the entire GDP (or just real estate, I forget) is owned directly by the Communist Party. This is rapidly decreasing, but it's done with the intent to transition China from a planned economy controlled by the state to a socialist market economy - very distinctly different from the open embracing of private enterprise by fascism and the blurring of lines between private business and government affairs. Next, fascism is totalitarian - China is definitively authoritarian, though the early days of the PRC were definitely totalitarian. Fascism necessarily dictates and regulates every aspect of private and public life. Uniforms are the stand-out part of fascist totalitarianism - people's actions are regulated down to what they are allowed to wear. China abandoned this early on, and while they restrict freedoms, they generally do so in a more limited way, allowing Chinese individuals to wear Western clothing and drive whatever brand car they please and watch foreign films, only really cracking down on groups or individuals who threaten (criticize) the Party. That's authoritarianism, not totalitarianism - there's a very distinct difference, and the PRC's authoritarianism is not fascist totalitarianism. Not remotely. Fascism is usually dictatorial or martial in leadership. China is semi-democratic, technocratic, and generally not at all focused on a "supreme leader." You probably don't even know what Xi Jinping looks like. You probably weren't that familiar with his name. But you know Hitler. You know Mussolini. Successful fascist movements have central leaders. That's important - it isn't in China. I could go on, but the PRC is definitely not fascist. Authoritarian? Yes, absolutely. But not fascist.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51552514]The PRC is a single-party/unitary socialist republic. Calling it "fascist" is blatantly wrong from an actual political science perspective. Little background on some of the parts of the PRC's governmental system: At the county level, registered members of the Communist Party can vote for representatives in the People's Congress, who oversee the operations of local government within that county. Those county-level representatives vote for the members of the Provincial/Municipal People's Congress. Those representatives elect the members of the National People's Congress. The political process in the PRC involves a democratic voting system, even though very limited and exclusive to members of the CPC (still a fairly decently-sized chunk of the population). Economically, fascism is all about encouraging [I]private ownership of capital[/I], usually by appointing business leaders to positions in government. The PRC is the absolute opposite - something like 40% of the entire GDP (or just real estate, I forget) is owned directly by the Communist Party. This is rapidly decreasing, but it's done with the intent to transition China from a planned economy controlled by the state to a socialist market economy - very distinctly different from the open embracing of private enterprise by fascism and the blurring of lines between private business and government affairs. Next, fascism is totalitarian - China is definitively authoritarian, though the early days of the PRC were definitely totalitarian. Fascism necessarily dictates and regulates every aspect of private and public life. Uniforms are the stand-out part of fascist totalitarianism - people's actions are regulated down to what they are allowed to wear. China abandoned this early on, and while they restrict freedoms, they generally do so in a more limited way, allowing Chinese individuals to wear Western clothing and drive whatever brand car they please and watch foreign films, only really cracking down on groups or individuals who threaten (criticize) the Party. That's authoritarianism, not totalitarianism - there's a very distinct difference, and the PRC's authoritarianism is not fascist totalitarianism. Not remotely. Fascism is usually dictatorial or martial in leadership. China is semi-democratic, technocratic, and generally not at all focused on a "supreme leader." You probably don't even know what Xi Jinping looks like. You probably weren't that familiar with his name. But you know Hitler. You know Mussolini. Successful fascist movements have central leaders. That's important - it isn't in China. I could go on, but the PRC is definitely not fascist. Authoritarian? Yes, absolutely. But not fascist.[/QUOTE] I stand corrected. Do you have any links to somewhere where I can learn more?

[QUOTE=space1;51549652]So you'd rather a bunch of uneducated idiots(the general public) elect the president? It is often said that a Democracy works best when all those who vote are educated enough to make a decision. While this is a very appealing idea, never has the general populace of this country been well educated enough to handle it. Socialism is also bad because then the upper class becomes the government. [editline]18th December 2016[/editline] The popular vote is [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority[/URL] and(in some cases) [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy [/URL][/QUOTE] So you'd rather have tyranny of the minority? You'd rather have mass disenfranchisement? Honestly, the best thing we could possibly do is to give Obama a special one year extension to his lame duck time and annul the election outright. Re-run from the top, ban Clinton and Trump from running, and see if we can get it right this time.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51553116]So you'd rather have tyranny of the minority? You'd rather have mass disenfranchisement? Honestly, the best thing we could possibly do is to give Obama a special one year extension to his lame duck time and annul the election outright. Re-run from the top, ban Clinton and Trump from running, and see if we can get it right this time.[/QUOTE] That may be the most tyrannical solution I've seen yet.