[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51381958]So where do you draw the line at where a population is "too big" for democracy?[/QUOTE]
There is no line? Its not "black and white"
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51381957]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]
But doesn't that just mean the Electoral College is just... a formality? That it really doesn't matter?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51381957]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]
Winner-take-all pledges need to be thrown into the trash, hands down.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51381993]But doesn't that just mean the Electoral College is just... a formality? That it really doesn't matter?[/QUOTE]
The electoral college is important for preventing something like the media from having a massive influence on something as important as the presidency. The electors themselves can stay as informed as can be, but it does open up a potential major corruption point. Electors shouldn't be allowed to be swayed as much as some are.
One of the problems that I literally have not seen addressed by anyone yet is the fact that in the vast majority of states, Electoral College voters don't have to vote for who they're told to vote for. They can say "f the people" and vote in whoever the fuck they want. Sure, it is designed to prevent tyranny, but don't you think that if they did their job that it'd only cause even more awful chaos?
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51381987]There is no line? Its not "black and white"[/QUOTE]
But you just said "Except it doesn't for large countries.". So at what point is a country "too large" for the rights of democracy?
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51382023]But you just said "Except it doesn't for large countries.". So at what point is a country "too large" for the rights of democracy?[/QUOTE]
what part of "not black and white" do you not understand?
when you have "provinces" that have more people in them than entire countries, that should justify being large enough.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51382029]what part of "not black and white" do you not understand?
when you have "provinces" that have more people in them than entire countries, that should justify being large enough.[/QUOTE]
If you're implying each state would have different levels of influence, that's not a "true democracy". A true democracy would be using the popular vote at it's TOTAL tally - regardless of how many votes a particular state got, and regardless of population per state.
[QUOTE=The Pretender;51377870]Trump 2012: The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
Trump 2016: The Electoral College is actually genius
Hmm. I wonder what changed his mind?[/QUOTE]
Same thing that the democrats are doing now: Bitch because they lost, praise because they won
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51382208]Same thing that the democrats are doing now: Bitch because they lost, praise because they won[/QUOTE]
the democrats are the only ones who've won the popular vote and lost the election twice in 16 years though so
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51382244]the democrats are the only ones who've won the popular vote and lost the election twice in 16 years though so[/QUOTE]
Sounds like they need to change their campaign strategy then. Clearly its the fault of the party for not campaigning based on the election system rather than doing the exact same thing they did in 2000 then crying for a week straight because they can't do it right.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51382244]the democrats are the only ones who've won the popular vote and lost the election twice in 16 years though so[/QUOTE]i guess a number just makes that all okay then
if she won nobody would be advocating for getting rid of the electoral college. that was the point he was trying to make
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51381957]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]
We should do this for 2020/2024 and keep Trump as president elect.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;51382277]i guess a number just makes that all okay then
if she won nobody would be advocating for getting rid of the electoral college. that was the point he was trying to make[/QUOTE]
Trump would be lmao.
Maybe if both sides don't like the EC maybe it should be changed????
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51382061]If you're implying each state would have different levels of influence, that's not a "true democracy". A true democracy would be using the popular vote at it's TOTAL tally - regardless of how many votes a particular state got, and regardless of population per state.[/QUOTE]
well I didn't imply that, and each state will have a different level of influence because of the differing population.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51382302]Trump would be lmao.
Maybe if both sides don't like the EC maybe it should be changed????[/QUOTE]And I agree with you that it should be changed and not completely abolished. Get rid of the winner-takes-all system because I voted Republican in my state (California) and knowing it didn't count along with the rest is a big punch to the gut, same to the opposite side in red states where Democrat votes didn't count.
Trump advocating for abolishment again and a possible movement of his supporters trying to do that would be a nightmare. I'm REALLY hoping that doesn't happen.
[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]
No she didn't
What is with these trump supporters doggedly supporting a system/gotcha that doesn't even exist
[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;51382337]And I agree with you that it should be changed and not completely abolished. Get rid of the winner-takes-all system because I voted Republican in my state (California) and knowing it didn't count along with the rest is a big punch to the gut, same to the opposite side in red states where Democrat votes didn't count.
Trump advocating for abolishment again and a possible movement of his supporters trying to do that would be a nightmare. I'm REALLY hoping that doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]
So if we do proportional EC instead of direct democracy, what margin of the EC going against the popular vote is acceptable in your opinion?
[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]
Why not just get rid of it?
I don't like my vote being worth less than someone that lives in Nowhere, Arkansas just because I live in a population center
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51382208]Same thing that the democrats are doing now: Bitch because they lost, praise because they won[/QUOTE]
The Republicans will always benefit more from the EC system than the Democrats simply due to the political geography of the United States. There is no incentive for Republicans to remove the system.
I'm starting to think more and more in the abstract about this and, why do we divide the electoral college by state? The arguments for and against usually have to do with small states and how their votes would matter more/less, etc.
First, take Vermont (population 626,042) and Wyoming (population 586,107), which each have 3 electoral votes.
Vermont therefore represents 1 electoral vote per 208,680.67 people.
Wyoming represents 1 electoral vote per 195,369 people.
Now take California (population 39,144,818) and Texas (population 27,469,114), which have 55 and 38 electoral votes respectively.
California represents 1 electoral vote per 711,724 people.
Texas represents 1 electoral vote per 722,871.4 people.
So what we have is skewed such that popular votes submitted are roughly 3 times as significant in states like Vermont and Wyoming compared to in states like California and Texas.
But why is it trying to 'balance' things at all? (Yes, i know the history, i'm talking about nowadays)
Why should 500,000 people living in a big state have their votes comparatively diminished to mean a third as much as the votes of 500,000 people living in a small state?
Why is it broken up by state at all? Why isn't it raw popular vote? What does it help things if one person's vote doesn't mean even half as much as another's, one-to-one? That's not balanced at all.
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;51382501]I'm starting to think more and more in the abstract about this and, why do we divide the electoral college by state? The arguments for and against usually have to do with small states and how their votes would matter more/less, etc.
First, take Vermont (population 626,042) and Wyoming (population 586,107), which each have 3 electoral votes.
Vermont therefore represents 1 electoral vote per 208,680.67 people.
Wyoming represents 1 electoral vote per 195,369 people.
Now take California (population 39,144,818) and Texas (population 27,469,114), which have 55 and 38 electoral votes respectively.
California represents 1 electoral vote per 711,724 people.
Texas represents 1 electoral vote per 722,871.4 people.
So what we have is skewed such that popular votes submitted are roughly 3 times as significant in states like Vermont and Wyoming compared to in states like California and Texas.
But why is it trying to 'balance' things at all? (Yes, i know the history, i'm talking about nowadays)
Why should 500,000 people living in a big state have their votes comparatively diminished to mean a third as much as the votes of 500,000 people living in a small state?
Why is it broken up by state at all? Why isn't it raw popular vote? What does it help things if one person's vote doesn't mean even half as much as another's, one-to-one? That's not balanced at all.[/QUOTE]
As CCP Grey said, you can theoretically win the presidency with just over a quarter of the popular vote thanks to the electoral college.
[QUOTE=Whoaly;51381873]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.[/QUOTE]
The military didn't like Trump either btw. It was something like >60% expressing great distaste for him while 80% hated Clinton. The military hates both pretty much.
Also it's not rewriting rules.
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;51382501]Why is it broken up by state at all? Why isn't it raw popular vote? What does it help things if one person's vote doesn't mean even half as much as another's, one-to-one? That's not balanced at all.[/QUOTE]
The way I understand it, a lot of the less populated states vote republican, so without boosted votes they would never win.
I just found out that in the 2004 election, an electoral college member who was pledged to vote for John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards, instead wrote in [I]"John Ewards"[/I]. That's 1 out of the 538 all-important votes flushed down the toilet due to idiocy. How can anyone support this system in its current form?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51382020]One of the problems that I literally have not seen addressed by anyone yet is the fact that in the vast majority of states, Electoral College voters don't have to vote for who they're told to vote for. They can say "f the people" and vote in whoever the fuck they want. Sure, it is designed to prevent tyranny, but don't you think that if they did their job that it'd only cause even more awful chaos?[/QUOTE]
It was designed that way to stop people like Trump from being elected.
It failed because the electors were too scared to go against the vote of their states.
The Electoral College is essentially the superdelegates of the presidential election.
[QUOTE=Levelog;51382420]So if we do proportional EC instead of direct democracy, what margin of the EC going against the popular vote is acceptable in your opinion?[/QUOTE]I had an idea for it, but I haven't thought it over entirely so bear with me here (feel free to criticize it too). It would involve dividing electoral votes based on the percentile of total votes without a winner-takes-all system. I'll use California as an example here.
Since Hillary still won, she would take all the electoral votes which is what we're trying to avoid. The amount needs to be split proportionally among the percentile gap to give those who really dominated in electoral votes. It's really a competition, ones who give it their all get more votes. They will never score 55 votes in one state because whatever amount they couldn't achieve is given to the losing party.
To do this, you percentile the amount of electoral votes in that state. For California and Hillary, it's 61.5% of 55, which ends up as 34 electoral votes. Count the same for Trump's votes (33.2%), which gives you 18 electoral votes. Do this for all the other state's electoral votes.
If you do the math, some states deadlock because of the math being finicky in areas with lower votes. In the case a deadlock happens, the raw number of votes are compared instead of electoral votes. Since Hillary got the most votes in Nevada, but it deadlocked with the math, BUT she had the most votes, one electoral vote is subtracted from the losing party, and one added to the winning party -- making Democrats win.
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;51382501]I'm starting to think more and more in the abstract about this and, why do we divide the electoral college by state? The arguments for and against usually have to do with small states and how their votes would matter more/less, etc.
First, take Vermont (population 626,042) and Wyoming (population 586,107), which each have 3 electoral votes.
Vermont therefore represents 1 electoral vote per 208,680.67 people.
Wyoming represents 1 electoral vote per 195,369 people.
Now take California (population 39,144,818) and Texas (population 27,469,114), which have 55 and 38 electoral votes respectively.
California represents 1 electoral vote per 711,724 people.
Texas represents 1 electoral vote per 722,871.4 people.
So what we have is skewed such that popular votes submitted are roughly 3 times as significant in states like Vermont and Wyoming compared to in states like California and Texas.
But why is it trying to 'balance' things at all? (Yes, i know the history, i'm talking about nowadays)
Why should 500,000 people living in a big state have their votes comparatively diminished to mean a third as much as the votes of 500,000 people living in a small state?
Why is it broken up by state at all? Why isn't it raw popular vote? What does it help things if one person's vote doesn't mean even half as much as another's, one-to-one? That's not balanced at all.[/QUOTE]
I saw someone do a graphic on Cali v Wyoming just a bit ago
[t]https://68.media.tumblr.com/6ba59b5675a7e5c107fe14454a939ac4/tumblr_ogri4tM20G1qc6jxfo1_1280.jpg[/t]
Would someone be willing to do a map of electoral college votes if they were spread out by percentage of voter population voting for xyz party?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51383121]Would someone be willing to do a map of electoral college votes if they were spread out by percentage of voter population voting for xyz party?[/QUOTE]
What quite do you mean, do you mean how many votes each state would have given to each candidate?
I mean it's pretty easy math to do but im lazy so yeesh putting it on a map
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51382020]One of the problems that I literally have not seen addressed by anyone yet is the fact that in the vast majority of states, Electoral College voters don't have to vote for who they're told to vote for. They can say "f the people" and vote in whoever the fuck they want. Sure, it is designed to prevent tyranny, but don't you think that if they did their job that it'd only cause even more awful chaos?[/QUOTE]
In this current political climate? Yes. If the current electors switch from Trump to Clinton, rumors of Hillary corrupting the electors will spread. People will believe these rumors despite being true or not. Which would in it self set off a shit storm. Hillary's reputation of being shady will only serve to legitimize these rumors.
The DNC really, really, really fucked up by not fielding Sanders. Hillary is more trouble then she is worth.
[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]
The reason the 2015 general election was utter crap is precisely because of how absurdly unrepresentative your system is:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I[/media]
So your argument about it meaning you can't endorse a fully democratic system falls flat on its face, it was crap [I]because[/I] it wasn't democratic enough.
[editline]17th November 2016[/editline]
[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]
This makes no sense. For starters, you won't have 100% of California voting Democrats, proportional representation isn't winner takes all.
Besides, states are irrelevant in a direct democracy since everybody's vote is worth the same regardless of where they live. If California was suddenly split into 21 separate states, would it make the combined political inclinations of the 21 states any different from those of California? No, people would still have the same beliefs and political convictions. Same thing if the 21 least populous states suddenly fused into a big one, nothing would change except for the fact people from there wouldn't have the lame, stupid excuse of "we're a small state so we have no power please give us more".
If direct democracy was enforced and people from small states didn't go vote because of your argument that would make them complete retards.
[editline]17th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51381661]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.[/QUOTE]
If the electors don't serve their sole purpose which is not to let an idiocratic populist into office (wonder who would fit this definition), then you might as well just switch to popular vote which is more representative and less arbitrarily disproportional.
[editline]17th November 2016[/editline]
[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]
And why not make individual voting power the same across the board while you're at it?
[editline]17th November 2016[/editline]
[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]
What does the size of a country have even have to do with this? And how does the electorate college mitigate the people being misinformed when literally all it does is give disproportionate voting power to people within small states and silence the votes of people who live in a state with an opposition majority. How does a system that simply makes votes deliberately unrepresentative in no politically coherent or rational manner somehow counters voter misinformation?
[editline]17th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51381994]Winner-take-all pledges need to be thrown into the trash, hands down.
[editline]16th November 2016[/editline]
The electoral college is important for preventing something like the media from having a massive influence on something as important as the presidency. The electors themselves can stay as informed as can be, but it does open up a potential major corruption point. Electors shouldn't be allowed to be swayed as much as some are.[/QUOTE]
How does the electoral college help in that matter since they won't vote contrary to what their states chose even though this scenario is precisely the one they were designed as a safeguard for?
[editline]17th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51382314]well I didn't imply that, and each state will have a different level of influence because of the differing population.[/QUOTE]
So a voting power that's proportional to the population? Along with state-level PR that's basically the same thing as nation-wide direct democracy.
The electoral college is totally defunct, especially with the prominence of digital communication and the internet. It was primarily to empower those with lesser access to information, which is entirely nullified now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
