[QUOTE=Vlevs;51379682]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.[/QUOTE]
Now I'm arguing against plain popular vote. The current electoral system doesn't seem to be that great either.
So in this case California has a large population and the drought is obviously a problem we can agree on so having a popular vote would benefit California. But it's not about the problem or solution itself, it's the influence it has on the state that it won't have outside the state.
What if California was one of the least populated states?
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379716]Now I'm arguing against plain popular vote. The current electoral system doesn't seem to be that great either.
So in this case California has a large population and the drought is obviously a problem we can agree on so having a popular vote would benefit California. But it's not about the problem or solution itself, it's the influence it has on the state that it won't have outside the state.
What if California was one of the least populated states?[/QUOTE]
It sounds like you'd support PR then and a more comprehensive shakeup of the American democratic system.
My question is if the count turns out to be higher then election night, could it change the election? What the probability of that?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51379721]It sounds like you'd support PR then and a more comprehensive shakeup of the American democratic system.[/QUOTE]
What's PR in this context?
I actually had a similar thought. It may be easy for me as a Norwegian citizen to say all of this. It could be that a plain popular public vote is what's best for the us right now. Especially given third party candidates.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51377835][media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798521053551140864[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798519600413601792[/media]
:v:[/QUOTE]
bigger doesn't feel even remotely correct
[QUOTE=Saturn V;51379811]bigger doesn't feel even remotely correct[/QUOTE]
it's because "win big" is an expression but it sounds wrong when you try to change it like that
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;51379755]What's PR in this context?
I actually had a similar thought. It may be easy for me as a Norwegian citizen to say all of this. It could be that a plain popular public vote is what's best for the us right now. Especially given third party candidates.[/QUOTE]
PR as in Proportional Representation through Single Transferable Vote. I.e., you don't vote directly for any one candidate; rather, you state your preference for each candidate from 1 to n, n being the number of candidates in the election.
Let's take an example: say you were voting in your constiuency and there were 5 people going forward for election. Depending on the population of the area, you might have 2 or more seats (don't remember how we calculate it in Ireland off the top of my head). The number of eligable voters will be counted and then split in say, half (again, not sure our calculation off the top of my head) to form the quota - this is the amount of votes a candidate has to get to be elected.
Let's say you're voting. You'd put 1 beside the candidate you really want to be elected, then 2 for your second preference, then 3 etc. until you put five besides the one you would least like to see in office.
Let's say that your first preference means the quota and your vote has already been counted. Congratulations, your voice was heard just like in a FPTP system.
But let's say they are elected but your vote hasn't been counted yet, or, god forbid, your candidate ends up with the least amount of votes in the first count. What happens? Well, the excess votes of your first preference, including your own, are transferred to your second preference in the first case. Let's also say no other candidate met the quota. This means that the person with the least amount of votes (in the second case, your first preference) is automatically kicked out, and then their votes are transferred to someone else, based on what people put down as their second preference.
This requires another round of counting, and so on and so fourth until that second seat is filled. Essentially, this means that nobody's vote is ever wasted as it will eventually transfer to one of the victors. This allows for third parties to actually be competitive as it's not risky to vote for them, as your voice will always count.
That is the advantage PR and STV offer over FPTP - and why I am much more confident in Irish democracy than American or British democracy, as I feel my voice will always be heard.
[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]
They implemented the system because the president doesn't represent the people. He represents a collection of state governments that have created a union.
It was for this reason that he wasn't elected by the people, but rather chosen by the legislatures of the states. The same was true for state senators in the federal senate.
The people were to have a voice in the American republic as well as the ability to prevent legislation from passing, but there was also the senate, which existed to temper the mob rule of the house. NOTHING was intended to pass unless it passed through the house, and thereby gained the approval of the people, and the senate, where it gained the approval of professional politicians.
Our entire electoral college system was designed SPECIFICALLY TO STOP PEOPLE LIKE TRUMP, but we disabled all the goddamn safeguards. Now the system is inherently unfair and the advantage it was intended to provide no longer exists.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51379360]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][/QUOTE]
Because we weren't intended as a pure democracy. The president isn't a representative of the people according to our original design.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51379748]My question is if the count turns out to be higher then election night, could it change the election? What the probability of that?[/QUOTE]
In the case of a popular vote or the system you have currently?
Clinton could get 50 million votes from California and it would currently change nothing - the votes have been count in enough states to determine that Trump won more than 270 votes. Currently that's all that matters, so there's no probability of Clinton winning (unless the electoral college decides to vote for her, which is not gonna happen).
In a system where the popular vote is what counts, obviously the winner wouldn't be called until enough votes have been counted.
It's up to just about 1.2 million now
If it actually does make it to 2 million I think the case for faithless electors becomes quite a lot stronger.
[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]
[quote=wikipedia]s of April 1, 2010, the date of the 2010 United States Census, the nine most populous U.S. states contain slightly more than half of the total population. The 25 least populous states contain less than one-sixth of the total population. California, the most populous state, contains more people than the 21 least populous states combined.[/quote]
Do this, and small states will stop voting because there will be no point in trying to beat California. I mean why would you vote in Nebraska if California = your state + 20 others combined? The Electoral College is flawed, but straight popular vote isn't any better.
[QUOTE=Naught;51379404]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]
Electors aren't forced to vote what they were forced to pledge to.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
Pure popular vote election will always be a terrible idea.
I dont see how you can even say that the electoral college helps smaller population areas have a part in the vote when those states get like 1 or 2 electoral votes and all the republicans in blue states dont matter. If anything the electoral college actually lessens the voice of the smaller populations and states to be completely non-existent.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51381626]Do this, and small states will stop voting because there will be no point in trying to beat California. I mean why would you vote in Nebraska if California = your state + 20 others combined? The Electoral College is flawed, but straight popular vote isn't any better.[/QUOTE]
You'd vote because your vote is worth the same as a Californian, and not all of the 9 most populous states will vote for one candidate. Your vote matters as much as theirs. Why are people so upset about the idea of one person not being able to outvote 3 or 4?
Didn't Clinton concede and quit before she even had the popular vote? Wish those sore losers out protesting would understand they are accomplishing nothing.
Concession is not legally binding, as has been stated previously. It's a formality.
If the election were to go the path of the popular vote, she could still accept the position.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51381626]Do this, and small states will stop voting because there will be no point in trying to beat California. I mean why would you vote in Nebraska if California = your state + 20 others combined? The Electoral College is flawed, but straight popular vote isn't any better.[/QUOTE]
What's the point in trying to beat California now? If anything it makes California more manageable because you have all the republicans in Cali actually mattering. Right now they don't.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51380585]It's up to just about 1.2 million now
If it actually does make it to 2 million I think the case for faithless electors becomes quite a lot stronger.[/QUOTE]
Not likely, it would lead to a massive shitstorm, even Vox of all places has explained why it's not likely to happen, and could even result in a military crisis. Seriously; there is a huge chance of some real nasty violence happening if the electoral college denied Trump the victory, and if, by some incredibly unlikely scenario, the Republican House and Senate go along with it.
If it was going to happen, Obama and Clinton would have signaled at least some willingness to go along with it.
[QUOTE=wystan;51381696]Didn't Clinton concede and quit before she even had the popular vote? Wish those sore losers out protesting would understand they are accomplishing nothing.[/QUOTE]
[I]THIS[/I]
She [I]QUIT.[/I] She gave up. Forfeit. Dropped out.
[I]She literally cannot win now, she QUIIIIIT before it was over![/I]
Your protests do nothing, your petitions do nothing, the electoral college can and will do [B]nothing.[/B]
Trump won. She quit. [B]Move on.[/B]
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51381758]Not likely, it would lead to a massive shitstorm, even Vox of all places has explained why it's not likely to happen, and could even result in a military crisis. Seriously; there is a huge chance of some real nasty violence happening if the electoral college denied Trump the victory, and if, by some incredibly unlikely scenario, the Republican House and Senate go along with it.
If it was going to happen, Obama and Clinton would have signaled at least some willingness to go along with it.[/QUOTE]
While entirely unrealistic, I'd find it pretty funny if all the people going around saying "It's how the electoral college works - deal with it ;^)" got some of their own medicine.
Of course it's not gonna happen, and it [I]shouldn't[/I] happen, either, but yeah, the electoral college is bad for a multitude of reasons - this one just hasn't manifested yet.
..everyone says there will be massive riots, but why would there be worse riots than there would be if hillary won or whats going on now? Why would it create a "military crisis", there is no "denying victory" when said victory isn't even a victory yet.
What needs to be done is not an abolishment of the electoral college, but rather the abolishmsnt of the winner takes all system within it. District the electors out.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51381790][I]THIS[/I]
She [I]QUIT.[/I] She gave up. Forfeit. Dropped out.
[I]She literally cannot win now, she QUIIIIIT before it was over![/I]
Your protests do nothing, your petitions do nothing, the electoral college can and will do [B]nothing.[/B]
Trump won. She quit. [B]Move on.[/B][/QUOTE]
Read a few posts above yours.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51381797]..everyone says there will be massive riots, but why would there be worse riots than there would be if hillary won or whats going on now? Why would it create a "military crisis", there is no "denying victory" when said victory isn't even a victory yet.[/QUOTE]
Because as far as many are concerned, especially Trump supporters, the election ended on November 8th when the news networks called the winner, most people probably don't even know Clinton won the popular vote, and Trump supporters certainly won't care.
Imagine being on the emotional high of hearing your candidate won, only to hear the next month "JK, lol, sry. last-minute rule change, win goes to Hillary."
If you can't see how that would make well-armed Trump-supporters go "FUCK EVERYTHING" and decide to occupy their local government buildings Bundy style (and worse) you don't understand the absolute feeling of being cheated. Being told you won but someone decides later on that you didn't win the "right" way and decides to rewrite the rules of the game.
And in regards to the military crisis, that's often what happens when this shit is pulled in other countries, and Hillary is NOT liked by the military.
No one believed there would be an actual civil war until the guns at fort Sumter started firing. Don't fuck around with that kind of thing.
maybe if it was majority vote instead of electoral college id actually feel motivated to vote living in a state thats guaranteed blue every year
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51381661]Pure popular vote election will always be a terrible idea.[/QUOTE]
Except it works perfectly well for every democratic country ever.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51381790][I]THIS[/I]
She [I]QUIT.[/I] She gave up. Forfeit. Dropped out.
[I]She literally cannot win now, she QUIIIIIT before it was over![/I]
Your protests do nothing, your petitions do nothing, the electoral college can and will do [B]nothing.[/B]
Trump won. She quit. [B]Move on.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=wystan;51381696]Didn't Clinton concede and quit before she even had the popular vote? Wish those sore losers out protesting would understand they are accomplishing nothing.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;51378364][B]TRUMP CAN KEEP THE PRESIDENCY, BUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEEDS TO BE GONE.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51381913]Except it works perfectly well for every democratic country ever.[/QUOTE]
Except it doesn't for large countries. The populace of large countries tends to be a majority of misinformed people. Because it worked out so well for ancient greece.
You can't act like you know whats best for a massive country if you are a proponent of direct democracy for such important positions.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51381817]What needs to be done is not an abolishment of the electoral college, but rather the abolishmsnt of the winner takes all system within it. District the electors out.[/QUOTE]
Basically this.
3 million people voted for Trump in California. Their votes are thrown in the trash. Their votes do not count. 3.8 million voted for Clinton in Texas. Their votes do not matter whatsoever.
Instead of giving all 55 electoral votes in California to Clinton, make it proportional. Give Hillary 34, Trump 18, and Johnson 2. Change the numbering around so you can have an out-of-100 proportional system so you're not down one vote, easily done by making it 550 or 5500 instead of 55.
Tadah. In 2012, Obama won the electoral vote with 62% despite only having 50% of the popular vote. If this was done proportionally per state, Obama would have won 51% to Romney's 49% - far, far closer to the actual popular vote.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51381945]Except it doesn't for large countries. The populace of large countries tends to be a majority of misinformed people. Because it worked out so well for ancient greece.
You can't act like you know whats best for a massive country if you are a proponent of direct democracy for such important positions.[/QUOTE]
So where do you draw the line at where a population is "too big" for democracy?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
