[QUOTE=TornadoAP;51378121]
Prisoners should be fucking allowed to vote. If they have truly been reformed and gotten a new life after being let out of jail, not allowing them to vote would be completely retarded.[/QUOTE]
The main criteria of being a prisoner is your presence within a prison, I don't think he was talking about formerly-charged ex-convicts
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
Not to suggest you aren't totally right about what you said tho
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51377997]I agree. US politics have degenerated to a pretty tragic point. An instant run-off voting system would eliminate the need to strategically vote in this way, however. Since there would be no need for primaries, you could simply rank your choices and simultaneously cast a vote for whichever few candidates most appeal to you. If your preferred candidate doesn't receive a majority share of the vote, your vote automatically transfers to your runner-up selection. If he doesn't, it transfers to your [I]next[/I] choice, and so on and so forth.[/QUOTE]
Primaries would likely persist as a way to consolidate campaign funding and advertising for certain parties. instant runoff isn't the only thing that would be nice, campaign finance reforms would be good along with it.
[QUOTE=nox;51377820]RIGGED.
Even after the results, this election continues to be a huge stack of fuck.[/QUOTE]
I hope there is a tie, so this shit show of an election can be dragged out further. The more chaos this election cycle produces, the better.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51377880]probably running for president and meeting the people who would get silenced if the electoral college was abandoned[/QUOTE]
I've seen so many people go "Oh the only reason you're mad is because Clinton didn't win!" (which is false, check my post history years back) - the least you can do is be the least bit critical of the fact that Trump didn't make those statements before November 9th. I have a hard time believing you're serious, it's basically the way a politician would spin it.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pops;51377886]there's new reports of 3 million votes having been cast by illegals.
i wonder if this is them?
[url]http://www.inquisitr.com/3719036/3-million-illegal-immigrants-voted-gregg-phillips-votestand-donald-trump-final-popular-vote-count-2016-predictions/[/url]
nothing proven yet of course, but it would be interesting because i honestly wouldn't doubt clinton in going that far (i remember hearing something a few months ago about the democrats trying to let prisoners vote).[/QUOTE]
Apparently illegals vote almost as much as real Americans. This is the point where you either think "that's ridiculous and can't be true" or "that's fucking embarrassing for US citizens". You decide which (hint: It's the first one, but your voter turnout is still embarrassingly low for a supposed democracy).
From an outsiders point of view, this is exactly the reason why people say "My vote doesn't matter"
because honestly, it doesn't.
You can vote for whoever the fuck you want, but it's really just the state higher ups that decide who you vote for.
The big reason why electoral college is a busted system is because literally 100% of your state can say I want to vote for Candidate A, but If your states electors are all for Candidate B, guess whos vote doesn't mean a damn thing. (Granted that is highly unlikely to happen, but it has happened in the past) Not 100% but voting against popular vote
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51377880]probably running for president and meeting the people who would get silenced if the electoral college was abandoned[/QUOTE]
Yeah the one million Clinton voters got silenced lmao
Christ do you have to agree with EVERYTHING Trump says?
The electoral college is objectively a bad thing
why does living in a less populated area give your vote more power for the presidency? Why do the citizens of more populated areas have less power?
Why do republicans in california pretty much have no say in the presidency? It's a blue lock every year, meaning their votes went to waste. You can apply the same logic to Dems in red states.
Seriously: TRUMP CAN KEEP THE PRESIDENCY, BUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEEDS TO BE GONE.
This flawed system is only good right now because your candidate won, if the circumstances we're reversed Trump would be calling the electoral college a rigged system getting in the way of the popular vote (Again)
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51377880]probably running for president and meeting the people who would get silenced if the electoral college was abandoned[/QUOTE]
We live in an era where you can send all kinds of information, from printed documents to lengthy animated presentations with audio, in the blink of an eye to almost any other corner in the world
The electoral college was built in an era where people had to haul their asses from the forgotten ends of nowhere to cast their votes, and [B]then[/B] make another lengthy trip back to their homes
We live in an era where the [B]only[/B] possibility to silence someone else's votes is by physically and digitally altering their records.
We live in an era where doing so would trigger alert flags and protests, punishing the offender and restoring the democratic process
We live in an era where the electoral college exists simply as a tool to [B]rig the very system[/B] it claims to [B][I]protect[/I][/B]
I almost (I say almost - because this happening would be horrible for everyone), I almost want the majority of the Electoral College voters to say "no fuck you" and vote in Clinton or someone else as President, [I]just to teach Trump and the politicans who've kept the Electoral College alive a lesson.[/I] After all, they'd just be doing their job - keeping a fairly tyrannical person out of the highest office of the land.
... see how dangerous that is? That that's a possibility? It's so blatantly anti-democratic it's ridiculous.
The electoral vote system is designed to let states with low population counts have a say in the vote, right? Or is that an over simplification? It sounds reasonable so I don't really understand the outrage. (against the electoral vote system, not trump)
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379328]The electoral vote system is designed to let states with low population counts have a say in the vote, right? Or is that an over simplification? It sounds reasonable so I don't really understand the outrage. (against the electoral vote system, not trump)[/QUOTE]
tbh if a state has a low population it really shouldn't have the same power or more than a far bigger state has
like it just makes no sense in this day and age
like what the fuck is even the point
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379328]The electoral vote system is designed to let states with low population counts have a say in the vote, right? Or is that an over simplification? It sounds reasonable so I don't really understand the outrage. (against the electoral vote system, not trump)[/QUOTE]
Probably is that the system in reality makes Dem voters in Texas irrelevant since Texas is a Republican powerhouse and Republican viters on California irrelevant since Calfornia is a Democratic powerhouse and so only makes a few swing states that can go either way relevant.
As a guy that lives in North Dakota, I personally don't see the need for the electoral college. Yeah, more populated states have more votes, that's to be expected?
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379328]The electoral vote system is designed to let states with low population counts have a say in the vote, right? Or is that an over simplification? It sounds reasonable so I don't really understand the outrage. (against the electoral vote system, not trump)[/QUOTE]
I do not understand this thought process. Why would you ensure that a clear minority has a chance to beat the clear majority? The whole point of a democratic vote is to find out which choice is supported by the majority, and which isn't.
And the electoral college doesn't succeed in doing that anyway, it just makes all the safe states irrelevant and makes the whole election come down to a couple of swing states.
[video=youtube;7wC42HgLA4k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k[/video]
first past the post (from what I've read) also makes the electoral college even worse. because it just makes a lot of votes just not count at all, in smaller states, and larger states. Without that system, people would have to campaign in a lot more states. Cali, for example, is basically a hard blue state, even though there are tons of republicans there, none of their votes count, so no republican even bothers to campaign there. It just isn't fair and democratic.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51379332]tbh if a state has a low population it really shouldn't have the same power or more than a far bigger state has
like it just makes no sense in this day and age
like what the fuck is even the point[/QUOTE]
Let's say there is some dispute between Iceland and China over some land. Since they can't come to an agreement, a union they were in held a vote were the people from both countries gets to decide. Most likely if you go by popular vote China would win. But is that fair?
I think popular vote in this extreme case unfair because of the differences in law, culture and even moral values. Just because China has a larger population count doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.
Obviously the differences between states are much smaller so you could argue that this is why you shouldn't have an electoral vote. But are they similar enough?
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379406]Let's say there is some dispute between Iceland and China over some land. Since they can't come to an agreement, a union they were in held a vote were the people from both countries gets to decide. Most likely if you go by popular vote China would win. But is that fair?
I think popular vote in this extreme case unfair because of the differences in law, culture and even moral values. Just because China has a larger population count doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.
Obviously the differences between states are much smaller so you could argue that this is why you shouldn't have an electoral vote. But are they similar enough?[/QUOTE]
Your analogy makes zero sense, Iceland and China are two different countries and the dispute you described is completely different than a presidential election.
It's not an extreme version of the situation, it's just a different one.
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379406]Let's say there is some dispute between Iceland and China over some land. Since they can't come to an agreement, a union they were in held a vote were the people from both countries gets to decide. Most likely if you go by popular vote China would win. But is that fair?
I think popular vote in this extreme case unfair because of the differences in law, culture and even moral values. Just because China has a larger population count doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.
Obviously the differences between states are much smaller so you could argue that this is why you shouldn't have an electoral vote. But are they similar enough?[/QUOTE]
Except that's a 100% different situation where you're explictly saying that one option is better for everybody in china and the other is 100% better for everybody in iceland. That has never happened and never will happen in a presidential election. A single-issue vote where one state comes out completely on top if the vote goes a certain way is so far removed from a presidential election that the argument has no bearing.
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379406]Let's say there is some dispute between Iceland and China over some land. Since they can't come to an agreement, a union they were in held a vote were the people from both countries gets to decide. Most likely if you go by popular vote China would win. But is that fair?
I think popular vote in this extreme case unfair because of the differences in law, culture and even moral values. Just because China has a larger population count doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.
Obviously the differences between states are much smaller so you could argue that this is why you shouldn't have an electoral vote. But are they similar enough?[/QUOTE]
In cases where you have four sets of voters (Icelandic ayes, Icelandic nays, Chinese ayes, and Chinese nays) it makes more sense to have a proportional system; if a higher proportion of Icelandic voters say they want the land than Chinese voters, the land should go to Iceland. (I don't see why the people who live in the disputed land don't get the sole vote, but whatever, assume it's uninhabited). Of course, if we assume that there are only Icelandic ayes and Chinese ayes (which is absurd when applied to a presidential election) - the population would matter, because otherwise you'd just have a 50-50 proportional vote which is unworkable.
That's not the system we're looking at in America. It's (pretty much) two sets of votes, republican and democrat. Without discussing the problems of third parties in a FPTP system, If the republicans got more votes than the democrats, they should win and vice-Versa. In a binary system (which is, essentially, what America currently is) each vote should have the same power. In a democracy where each vote counts the same as any other and the goal is to achieve the greatest result for the greatest number, popular votes are the only way to go.
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379406]Let's say there is some dispute between Iceland and China over some land. Since they can't come to an agreement, a union they were in held a vote were the people from both countries gets to decide. Most likely if you go by popular vote China would win. But is that fair?
I think popular vote in this extreme case unfair because of the differences in law, culture and even moral values. Just because China has a larger population count doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.
Obviously the differences between states are much smaller so you could argue that this is why you shouldn't have an electoral vote. But are they similar enough?[/QUOTE]
sure thats probably not fair (though in america we have, for the most part, the same customs, law, culture, morals, etc). but it doesn't even matter, because the electoral college does nothing to help those smaller states. you can win an election with just the 11 largest states voting for you, the rest going to another person. CGP Grey even talks about how you can win, handily, with only 22% of the popular vote, by campaigning in only a few key states, in the trouble with the electoral college video. That is the direct opposite of democracy, in every way.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51377906]Just please stop, a Clinton presidency will just keep the War machine rolling.
I hate trump and hate a good chunk of his policies, but a Clinton presidency would be worse. You know Trump is crazy and he has no filter of the shit he says, Clinton has the filter of acting like "everything is normal" while letting her warhawk feathers fluff around while wall street has it's grip on D.C.[/QUOTE]
[B][U]This.[/U][/B]
I honestly don't care if she had won by 10 million votes, or if Trump came to power in a violent coup. You judge a system based on results and outcomes, not the process. This was a duel between two outcomes, one acceptable, the other not. If "one person one vote" would have resulted in the unacceptable outcome then I have no choice but to endorse the less democratic system.
It's all a moot point anyway. Before this election you could probably find support from voters in both parties for ending the electoral college. Now, however, almost all Trump voters and the Republican senators and congressmen have every incentive to keep it, and as we know from the last 8 years, those guys are very good at obstructing things.
So ignoring the conversation going on, I just want to address the topic of the main post.
Clinton's popular-vote superiority has recently surpassed a million, and that's [B]with[/B] the electoral college meaning that many peoples' votes are meaningless.
Take myself and my friends for example. We live in Washington state, and in Washington state, there are three things that are virtual guarantees: if you're west of the Cascades it's going to rain a shit-ton, if you're east of the Cascades it will barely rain at all, and Washington is going to be blue in the presidential election.
As a result of that last certainty, combined with the electoral college, I only know a [B]single[/B] person who actually voted. The rest of us decided it wasn't worth the effort, because we [B]know[/B] Washington is going to vote Democrat. It's a fucking certainty.
Now imagine that for the vast majority of states who aren't in any way swing states, there is surely a sizable portion of people who feel exactly the same way, and so didn't even bother to vote, because they [B]know[/B] their vote won't make a difference.
[B]Now[/B] imagine that if all of those people [B]did[/B] vote. Just imagine what the numbers would be like then.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51379498]I honestly don't care if she had won by 10 million votes, or if Trump came to power in a violent coup. You judge a system based on results and outcomes, not the process.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51379498]This was a duel between two outcomes, one acceptable, the other not. If "one person one vote" would have resulted in the unacceptable outcome then I have no choice but to endorse the less democratic system.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how a nation of a huge population of different opinions could decide which candidate is the acceptable one, and which one isn't...
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51379498]It's all a moot point anyway. Before this election you could probably find support from voters in both parties for ending the electoral college. Now, however, almost all Trump voters and the Republican senators and congressmen have every incentive to keep it, and as we know from the last 8 years, those guys are very good at obstructing things.[/QUOTE]
This is a terrible argument for not even trying.
Looking at the video posted it was a bit different than I thought. However I would still think unfair to just have a plain popular vote.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51379425]Except that's a 100% different situation where you're explictly saying that one option is better for everybody in china and the other is 100% better for everybody in iceland. [/QUOTE]
That's true. Land should be replaced by something else that could clearly be beneficial for both. Maybe some union law? The point of the analogy was to highlight the cultural and law differences between the countries that may influence the vote.
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;51379420]Iceland and China are two different countries[/QUOTE]
So how do you think Texas is different from Vermont? I don't really know myself other than a quick google saying Vermont is left leaning while Texas is right leaning.
Even if culture is the same law has a big say too. If a state lowered taxes which had a bad outcome on schools and roads or whatever to the point that the citizens wish the tax was a little higher. It's especially important that this state has a vote where the president promises to lower taxes everywhere since they have experimented with that themselves.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51379498][B][U]This.[/U][/B]
I honestly don't care if she had won by 10 million votes, or if Trump came to power in a violent coup. You judge a system based on results and outcomes, not the process. This was a duel between two outcomes, one acceptable, the other not. If "one person one vote" would have resulted in the unacceptable outcome then I have no choice but to endorse the less democratic system.
It's all a moot point anyway. Before this election you could probably find support from voters in both parties for ending the electoral college. Now, however, almost all Trump voters and the Republican senators and congressmen have every incentive to keep it, and as we know from the last 8 years, those guys are very good at obstructing things.[/QUOTE]
That's all well and good but the US would then have to stop calling itself a democracy and become a dictatorship, and we both know that dictatorships can't be relied upon to make the right decision (or, at least, the decision you like) all the time.
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379514]Looking at the video posted it was a bit different than I thought. However I would still think unfair to just have a plain popular vote.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but why? The problem here isn't the vote, it's that there is one winner that takes it all. If, for example, the cabinet was decided based on the proportion of votes, everyone's vote would count - republicans in California, democrats in Texas, even people voting third party might have a chance of putting someone from their preferred party in power.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51379515]That's all well and good but the US would then have to stop calling itself a democracy and become a dictatorship, and we both know that dictatorships can't be relied upon to make the right decision (or, at least, the decision you like) all the time.[/QUOTE]
It's a tricky question isn't it?
But the American founders implemented this system specifically to prevent total mob rule, which is exactly what results from "one person one vote" when you get right down to it.
Peter Hitchens said it best after the 2015 general election:
[QUOTE]For we now live in a Kingdom of Lies in which almost everything is upside down or twisted, and in which most people are unhappily fooled into thinking, acting and voting against their own best interests.[/QUOTE]
How could I endorse a fully democratic system in light of that?
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51379560]It's a tricky question isn't it?
But the American founders implemented this system specifically to prevent total mob rule, which is exactly what results from "one person one vote" when you get right down to it.
Peter Hitchens said it best after the 2015 general election:
How could I endorse a fully democratic system in light of that?[/QUOTE]
Explain to me how "one person one vote" will result in mob rule. I think that it's an extreme failure of American democracy that that can be considered a possibility considering right now that a completely undemocratic system is somehow considered preferable to a representative system.
The Electoral College and the way of doing democracy in the States needs to change before anything else can. It is not a fair nor representative system; it only results in the marginilsation of minorities which results in real mob rule. The constant gerrymandering needs to stop. The voter apathy generating by the Electoral College, which makes so many people's voices simply not matter because of their geographical location needs to stop.
Look at the Irish democratic system. It has PR. It has multiple representatives per constituency. The President is a figurehead while the representatives do most of the work. I feel my democracy is a lot fairer and that my voice is heard more often thanks to how our politics work. We certainly have problems, but they can be fixed. TDs change all the time and constantly have to be doing things to retain their seats; that simply does not seem to be the case in the States.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51379560]It's a tricky question isn't it?
But the American founders implemented this system specifically to prevent total mob rule, which is exactly what results from "one person one vote" when you get right down to it.
Peter Hitchens said it best after the 2015 general election:
How could I endorse a fully democratic system in light of that?[/QUOTE]
It's easy to be cynical about democracy, it's easy to disregard people as having voted stupidly or foolishly, but a democratic system has to respect the way people voted regardless of their reasons. One of the founding fathers said that knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and those who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge brings; the electorate has a responsibility to be active in political discussion, and to discern the facts and hold their representatives to account. Democracy isn't something that happens every four or five years when there's an election, it's a constant thing that requires a lot of hard work to maintain - it's not the job of the politicians to tell the truth, it's the job of the electors to make sure they're not lying. That's the best defence against mob rule, not an archaic system that lets a minority of people command the majority. You might think that an enlightened democracy is a pipe dream, and frankly I'd find it hard to disagree, but I can't in good conscience remove the people from their government totally.
I'd like to see a system where government isn't so involved with people's lives and can justify being an unelected body of professional civil servants concerned with defence, trade, and foreign policy, where the people can submit their concerns through elected representatives who don't hold any executive power (and perhaps in extreme cases by not paying taxes). Maybe the people should be involved in but not responsible for government? It's not an easy discussion to have.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51379529]Yes, but why? The problem here isn't the vote, it's that there is one winner that takes it all. If, for example, the cabinet was decided based on the proportion of votes, everyone's vote would count - republicans in California, democrats in Texas, even people voting third party might have a chance of putting someone from their preferred party in power.[/QUOTE]
The problem I see with this is that people don't live in states that have the same laws or has the same environment. The drought is for instance something that can have an influence over which president you vote for. Like if the candidate is lobbied by Nestlè who is profiting from the drought.
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379632]The problem I see with this is that people don't live in states that have the same laws or has the same environment. The drought is for instance something that can have an influence over which president you vote for. Like if the candidate is lobbied by Nestlè who is profiting from the drought.[/QUOTE]
But what if the state worst hit by negative consequences is the most populous one and its citizens don't get voice they deserve because their votes are proportionally worth less? They are overridden by fewer people with more voting power due to being spread over more states.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
