• National Popular Vote bill in Congress could allow each vote to matter for Presidential elections
    70 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514379]Oh no, an error happened once, the whole system that has functioned for over 200 years must be terribly broken forever.[/QUOTE] yes when you have a system meant to democratically elect a representative, and it doesn't, it's broken, no matter how you swing it. your democratic system elected someone who wasn't democratically chosen.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514398]Apples and oranges.[/QUOTE] The point still stands, just because something has been used for a long time doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. Resisting change simply because the past system was in use for so long (and works most of the time) is stupid if there's a better option (which I'm not saying this is). So what if the little states aren't payed as much attention to, it seems a great deal better than just 3 or 4 states being payed attention to. Besides, I would much rather every citizen have an equal vote that is applied directly towards their candidate of choice rather than the current system.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34514679]If you lived in a place like Washington you would have a good understanding of why this can be a problem. Smaller areas should have a say as well. In Washington most of the politics are dictated from Seattle and Tacoma. People in Eastern Washington are paying taxes and being run by things that don't effect them. Why should someone in Spokane be paying for Mass Transit in Seattle? It's tyrannical in it's own way.[/QUOTE] To be fair, the argument of "why should someone in x place pay for something that doesn't directly benefit them" is a pretty flimsy one to begin with. Why should someone in a rural California town pay for the healthcare of some prisoner in Wyoming (in the form of tax dollars that go to prisons)? Why would should someone in Minnesota pay for someone else's unemployment insurance (again, through tax dollars)? If we were to go by the logic of 'no one should be paying for things they don't directly benefit from', then we'd be a pretty shitty country. That is to say, shittier than usual.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514270]The United States was built to be a [B]Republic[/B] not a democracy. A vast majority of the Founding Fathers were against democracy. Just sayin'[/QUOTE] Didn't they also want a 'living breathing constitution' That worked out great
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34514745]To be fair, the argument of "why should someone in x place pay for something that doesn't directly benefit them" is a pretty flimsy one to begin with. Why should someone in a rural California town pay for the healthcare of some prisoner in Wyoming (in the form of tax dollars that go to prisons)? Why would should someone in Minnesota pay for someone else's unemployment insurance (again, through tax dollars)? If we were to go by the logic of 'no one should be paying for things they don't directly benefit from', then we'd be a pretty shitty country. That is to say, shittier than usual.[/QUOTE] Because the healthcare of everyone benefits and directly effects everyone. It isn't just a matter of benefit, it's a matter of effect. Someone in Spokane will probably never effected by mass transit in Seattle, because it is limited to Seattle. If the mass transit system was being put in place for the entire state to benefit from, you would be correct. It's tyrannical for someone to be paying into a system that only benefits a select few people. When people east of the Cascades are paying for something that only helps a couple hundred thousand people west of the Cascades, there is a serious problem.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;34514720]The point still stands, just because something has been used for a long time doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. Resisting change simply because the past system was in use for so long (and works most of the time) is stupid if there's a better option (which I'm not saying this is). So what if the little states aren't payed as much attention to, it seems a great deal better than just 3 or 4 states being payed attention to. Besides, I would much rather every citizen have an equal vote that is applied directly towards their candidate of choice rather than the current system.[/QUOTE] The idea of only 3 or 4 states in a popular vote system is ludicrous. Even if one assumes that we have 100% voter turnout in the 4 most populous states (New York, California, Texas, and Florida) and that all people in those states vote for 1 candidate, that is only 32.5% of the entire country. Even at maximum they would have pay more attention to all the states. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;34514832]Because the healthcare of everyone benefits and directly effects everyone. It isn't just a matter of benefit, it's a matter of effect. Someone in Spokane will probably never effected by mass transit in Seattle, because it is limited to Seattle. If the mass transit system was being put in place for the entire state to benefit from, you would be correct. It's tyrannical for someone to be paying into a system that only benefits a select few people. When people east of the Cascades are paying for something that only helps a couple hundred thousand people west of the Cascades, there is a serious problem.[/QUOTE] So then, should men not have any of their tax dollars go towards abortion care because it is limited to women? It follows this arbitrary rule you've now put up of 'only if it benefits a select group of people', so should it?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34514835] So then, should men not have any of their tax dollars go towards abortion care because it is limited to women? It follows this arbitrary rule you've now put up of 'only if it benefits a select group of people', so should it?[/QUOTE] Nationwide or statewide abortion effects everyone still. A better analogy is if Seattle was the only place where it was legal to have abortions payed for by the state, and every single person in the state of Washington had to pay for those abortions. That's still unfair. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] It isn't just because it effects a few people, and not the others, but it only benefits people living in a certain geographic region, and everyone outside of that geographic region gains no benefit while still having to pay for it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34514679]If you lived in a place like Washington you would have a good understanding of why this can be a problem. Smaller areas should have a say as well. In Washington most of the politics are dictated from Seattle and Tacoma. People in Eastern Washington are paying taxes and being run by things that don't effect them. Why should someone in Spokane be paying for Mass Transit in Seattle? It's tyrannical in it's own way.[/QUOTE] But that's not relevant to a presidential election. Everyone is voting to elect a single representative who governs the whole nation equally. Why should anyone's vote count more?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34514949]But that's not relevant to a presidential election. Everyone is voting to elect a single representative who governs the whole nation equally. Why should anyone's vote count more?[/QUOTE] Because that sort of stuff can happen nationally as well. A representatives job is to represent the interest of his/her state. If a select few states are able to take a large majority of votes you will see those select few states benefit in the form of road and highways, subsidies that benefit industries in their state, and laws that those states have an interest in. That is why we have a House that is proportionate to state population, while we have a congress that is 2 votes per state. It makes it so that states are still run proportionally and democratically, but that smaller population states are not completely shoved to the sides, and their interests are still heard. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] This plays into presidential elections because if a few states are the sole choosers of the president, why should other states even have a say in the first place? If California hypothetically carried 60% of the vote, the presidential election would be, in essence, the California election. This doesn't represent everyone equally.
Yeah except California doesn't have a population of 187 million so what are you talking about
Indirect democracy! Fuck NO!
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34515086]Because that sort of stuff can happen nationally as well. A representatives job is to represent the interest of his/her state. If a select few states are able to take a large majority of votes you will see those select few states benefit in the form of road and highways, subsidies that benefit industries in their state, and laws that those states have an interest in. That is why we have a House that is proportionate to state population, while we have a congress that is 2 votes per state. It makes it so that states are still run proportionally and democratically, but that smaller population states are not completely shoved to the sides, and their interests are still heard. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] This plays into presidential elections because if a few states are the sole choosers of the president, why should other states even have a say in the first place? If California hypothetically carried 60% of the vote, the presidential election would be, in essence, the California election. This doesn't represent everyone equally.[/QUOTE] Like I said, even if one candidate carried the 4 most populous states (which in all likelihood they won't consistently) in their entirety, it would still only be 32.5% of the population.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34515150]Yeah except California doesn't have a population of 187 million so what are you talking about[/QUOTE] You still see this in today's election, where there are a select few states that are the sole determination of presidential elections. California is one of those states.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34515244]You still see this in today's election, where there are a select few states that are the sole determination of presidential elections. California is one of those states.[/QUOTE] Okay, but... what? Your argument is becoming increasingly incoherent.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34515086]Because that sort of stuff can happen nationally as well. A representatives job is to represent the interest of his/her state. If a select few states are able to take a large majority of votes you will see those select few states benefit in the form of road and highways, subsidies that benefit industries in their state, and laws that those states have an interest in. That is why we have a House that is proportionate to state population, while we have a congress that is 2 votes per state. It makes it so that states are still run proportionally and democratically, but that smaller population states are not completely shoved to the sides, and their interests are still heard. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] This plays into presidential elections because if a few states are the sole choosers of the president, why should other states even have a say in the first place? If California hypothetically carried 60% of the vote, the presidential election would be, in essence, the California election. This doesn't represent everyone equally.[/QUOTE] How doesn't it? Your alternate-Earth California isn't a single entity amongst 49 others, it's 190 million people, and the interests of 190 million people are still more important than the interests of 110 million people. If we're going to divide the country into arbitrary voting blocs to be balanced against eachother, why not give asians a stronger vote than mexicans, so that both racial groups are all equally represented?
[QUOTE=LCBADs;34515287]How doesn't it? Your alternate-Earth California isn't a single entity amongst 49 others, it's 190 million people, and the interests of 190 million people are still more important than the interests of 110 million people. If we're going to divide the country into arbitrary voting blocs to be balanced against eachother, why not give asians a stronger vote than mexicans, so that both racial groups are all equally represented?[/QUOTE] The interest of a geographic region are not more important than the interests of every other region. It wouldn't be fair if everyone in the rest of the USA is paying for stuff that only benefits one part, even if that one part had the greatest population. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34515266]Okay, but... what? Your argument is becoming increasingly incoherent.[/QUOTE] Probably, I've gotten way off track and I'm probably arguing about something different than what you are arguing. I'm just saying that there should be a balance between governing proportionate to populate versus every state getting an equal say regardless of population. There is a thing called tyranny of the majority, that's why pure democracy is ancient and primitive.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34515244]You still see this in today's election, where there are a select few states that are the sole determination of presidential elections. California is one of those states.[/QUOTE] California doesn't decide the election, Texas doesn't decide the election, and New York doesn't decide the election. If there are any states that do decide the election, it's Florida or Ohio or any of the semi-big swing states. And they only decide the election because of the electoral college's existence.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34515415]There is a thing called tyranny of the majority, that's why pure democracy is ancient and primitive.[/QUOTE] I always hear about this, but I never hear anyone offer a solution, so why do you criticize it?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34515415]The interest of a geographic region are not more important than the interests of every other region. It wouldn't be fair if everyone in the rest of the USA is paying for stuff that only benefits one part, even if that one part had the greatest population. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] Probably, I've gotten way off track and I'm probably arguing about something different than what you are arguing. I'm just saying that there should be a balance between governing proportionate to populate versus every state getting an equal say regardless of population. There is a thing called tyranny of the majority, that's why pure democracy is ancient and primitive.[/QUOTE] Of course it should be more important, votes are made by people, not by states - your "geographic region", which i assume is a stand-in for "AE-California" is not equal to "every other region" [I]specifically because it has more voters, and is thus more important to a government that claims to represent its constituents equally.[/I] Going back to the hypothetical race example. An underlying concern of yours is that people will vote in a president that specifically favors their state in any relevant issue(how that happens when the president doesn't affect state law, i'm not entirely sure). But people do this just as strongly, if not more so, with race. With that in mind, why should hispanics be have greater control over the election than asians? A solution would be to make it so that 14 million have a stronger vote than 50 million, but that'd be insane for very obvious reasons, [I][U]especially in a government that claims to represent its constituents equally[/U][/I]. If you're going to divide everyone into arbitrarily equal voting blocs, why is dividing up by state any less nonsensical that dividing it up by race or political party?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34515680]I always hear about this, but I never hear anyone offer a solution, so why do you criticize it?[/QUOTE] The solution is like the system we have in place now. A combination of proportionate representation and unproportionate representation.
This would make me far more likely to vote. Part of why I don't is because I don't feel it's worth my time, the electoral college can and will override my vote. Makes me feel like it's a waste of time to even cast it.
I'm curious how they're doing this. Does it have to be a constitutional amendment or not?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34516380]The solution is like the system we have in place now. A combination of proportionate representation and unproportionate representation.[/QUOTE] no, not really. As long as the policies of our country are decided by a group of people any larger than two, there will always be a majority that is capable of imposing its will on the minority. That's why the "murder should be illegal" crowd is unfairly overrepresented in politics compared to the "murder should be legal" crowd. Placing unnecessary abstractions over that doesn't solve the problem, if its even a problem in the first place.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514270]The United States was built to be a [B]Republic[/B] not a democracy. A vast majority of the Founding Fathers were against democracy. Just sayin'[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Thomas fucking Jefferson]Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. [B]But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.[/B] We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.[/QUOTE] [I]Fuck the founding fathers.[/I]
This is how it should've been in the first place.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34516755][I]Fuck the founding fathers.[/I][/QUOTE] there are not enough [IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/IMG]s in the world
[QUOTE=LCBADs;34516723]no, not really. As long as the policies of our country are decided by a group of people any larger than two, there will always be a majority that is capable of imposing its will on the minority. That's why the "murder should be illegal" crowd is unfairly overrepresented in politics compared to the "murder should be legal" crowd. Placing unnecessary abstractions over that doesn't solve the problem, if its even a problem in the first place.[/QUOTE] But it does. We have the filibuster and veto to prevent the majority from imposing it's rule. It requires a super majority in order to enact policy, because a simple majority is tyrannical. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34516755][I]Fuck the founding fathers.[/I][/QUOTE] Democracy would be regression, not progression. Democracy is a form of tyranny, and isn't to be admired by any free person.
Now if we could just totally do away with congress and have a direct democracy, i'd be a happy camper.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;34517797]Now if we could just totally do away with congress and have a direct democracy, i'd be a happy camper.[/QUOTE] This is such a stupid statement.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34517649]But it does. We have the filibuster and veto to prevent the majority from imposing it's rule. It requires a super majority in order to enact policy, because a simple majority is tyrannical. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] Democracy would be regression, not progression. Democracy is a form of tyranny, and isn't to be admired by any free person.[/QUOTE] Ah, so to prevent the rule of the majority, we replace it with the rule of the [I]super-majority[/I]. If that was the issue, we should just make it so that a candidate has to get the vote of, say, 60% of all eligible voters to win, and do away with the electoral college anyway. The problem with the electoral college as it stands now is that while it's harder for the majority to impose its will on the minority, the flipside is that it becomes easier for the minority to do vice-versa. This puts us in a position where the wishes of the many can be overridden by the wishes of the few - even worse than that "tyranny of the majority" we're trying to avoid, because the decision would satisfy fewer people, and under-represent many more. And I seriously wonder what your definition of tyranny is if you think democracy applies.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.