GentlemanJonMax_If the US was a true democracy the president would pretty much be decided by California, Flordia, Texas, New York, Illinois and like 2 other states
I can only assume that this is the result of some kind of anchoring effect where your current perception is so focused on the idea that states elect presidents that this would continue to be the case.
In a true democracy the President would be selected by millions of equally weighted individual votes regardless of location. Pieces of land or lines on a map would have no votes. The millions of currently arbitrarily disenfranchised voters, democrat or republican, would be empowered.
If a state currently has disproportionate influence due to it's status as a swing state, and it's swing voters have disproportionate influence, that is bad for democracy and a failure of representational politics. Turnouts would improve, voters who have been ignored their entire lives would suddenly find themselves relevant and localised complacency would be exposed.
I can't think of a rational reason for continuing with the current system, but then again I have no idea why the UK persists with our system either other than vested interests and fear of change. Still, the US is at least making progress towards sanity http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Read Elliot's post
eee
The problem with trying to be fair is that it isn't fair in the end. 51% of the population agreeing on something that is very divisive means that 49% gets completely screwed. The point of the electoral college (modern) isn't to make it so that rural states count more, but make it so that you can't just appeal to 10 cities and then say you'll give Arizona a tax break to be president. Spreading out the vote insures that its impossible for a single base to control the entire election
I think the EC has failed and the results end up similar, but the way it has failed is still probably better than pure democracy. Right now you have to appeal slightly to your parties' locked states and then campaign across a few relatively diverse swing states ensuring that various types of Americans get some campaign time. Pure democracy would basically be decided by New York, California, and Texas and the democrats would never lose just because they could promise to do whatever the big cities want and then play nice with a few localized regions to push them over 50%.
So no, the EC isn't fair, but its less unfair than pure democracy so its not likely to leave soon.
"true" democracies are unfair.
[quote=GentlemanJon][quote=Max_]If the US was a true democracy the president would pretty much be decided by California, Flordia, Texas, New York, Illinois and like 2 other states[/quote]
I can only assume that this is the result of some kind of anchoring effect where your current perception is so focused on the idea that states elect presidents that this would continue to be the case.
In a true democracy the President would be selected by millions of equally weighted individual votes regardless of location. Pieces of land or lines on a map would have no votes. The millions of currently arbitrarily disenfranchised voters, democrat or republican, would be empowered.
If a state currently has disproportionate influence due to it's status as a swing state, and it's swing voters have disproportionate influence, that is bad for democracy and a failure of representational politics. Turnouts would improve, voters who have been ignored their entire lives would suddenly find themselves relevant and localised complacency would be exposed.
I can't think of a rational reason for continuing with the current system, but then again I have no idea why the UK persists with our system either other than vested interests and fear of change. Still, the US is at least making progress towards sanity http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/[/quote]
Read Elliot's post
[quote=eee]
The problem with trying to be fair is that it isn't fair in the end. 51% of the population agreeing on something that is very divisive means that 49% gets completely screwed. The point of the electoral college (modern) isn't to make it so that rural states count more, but make it so that you can't just appeal to 10 cities and then say you'll give Arizona a tax break to be president. Spreading out the vote insures that its impossible for a single base to control the entire election
I think the EC has failed and the results end up similar, but the way it has failed is still probably better than pure democracy. Right now you have to appeal slightly to your parties' locked states and then campaign across a few relatively diverse swing states ensuring that various types of Americans get some campaign time. Pure democracy would basically be decided by New York, California, and Texas and the democrats would never lose just because they could promise to do whatever the big cities want and then play nice with a few localized regions to push them over 50%.
So no, the EC isn't fair, but its less unfair than pure democracy so its not likely to leave soon.[/quote]
"true" democracies are unfair.
Reero"true" democracies are unfair.
I have read it, I don't find it remotely convincing either. He's indulging in the same kinds of oversimplification that those saying "the union won" do. Of course you don't win by just appealing to 10 cities, it's ridiculous, if for no other reason than you would never get one candidate idiotic enough to let the other one do it. It also totally fails to consider how political campaigns select their target voters which I suspect Elliot well knows.
I didn't say it was the ultimate example of fairness, but it's fairer than simply discounting millions of votes and it's a far truer representation of democracy than your current system. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have geographical links which is more than enough. The other primary mechanism through which people in marginal areas are protected is the rights system, which is very well established in the US to say the least.
The possible moderate rebalancing of the US democratic system to pay slightly more attention to heavily populated urban areas versus the literal disenfranchisement of millions of voters (both rural and urban) seems like an extraordinarily small concern to me when next to each other side by side.
edit: it's worth considering whether your concerns are actually that you are voting a single person into such an incredibly powerful position, and that there is no balance against them taking an incredibly divisive position or being utterly objectionable on a number of other grounds, both examples of which we've just seen.
Having such a black and white result to a democratic process might be the symptom that needs to be addressed, rather than the mechanism through which the decision is reached.
[quote=Reero]"true" democracies are unfair.[/quote]
I have read it, I don't find it remotely convincing either. He's indulging in the same kinds of oversimplification that those saying "the union won" do. Of course you don't win by just appealing to 10 cities, it's ridiculous, if for no other reason than you would never get one candidate idiotic enough to let the other one do it. It also totally fails to consider how political campaigns select their target voters which I suspect Elliot well knows.
I didn't say it was the ultimate example of fairness, but it's fairer than simply discounting millions of votes and it's a far truer representation of democracy than your current system. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have geographical links which is more than enough. The other primary mechanism through which people in marginal areas are protected is the rights system, which is very well established in the US to say the least.
The possible moderate rebalancing of the US democratic system to pay slightly more attention to heavily populated urban areas versus the literal disenfranchisement of millions of voters (both rural and urban) seems like an extraordinarily small concern to me when next to each other side by side.
edit: it's worth considering whether your concerns are actually that you are voting a single person into such an incredibly powerful position, and that there is no balance against them taking an incredibly divisive position or being utterly objectionable on a number of other grounds, both examples of which we've just seen.
Having such a black and white result to a democratic process might be the symptom that needs to be addressed, rather than the mechanism through which the decision is reached.
If California wasn't a state Hilary would have lost the popular vote by 2 million votes (55,049,835 vs 57,165,520 ).
If we remove New York as well she would have lost by about 4 million votes (50,905,961 vs 54,524,950)
What about if you live in Wyoming where 55,949 people voted for hillary and 174,248 for Trump?
Why should two states have that much influence on the election? Why is there any reason for the candidates to try and win those states when they can just appeal to states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida and win millions of votes. A true democracy in the US is less fair than the EC even though the EC isn't exactly perfectly fair either
If California wasn't a state Hilary would have lost the popular vote by 2 million votes (55,049,835 vs 57,165,520 ).
If we remove New York as well she would have lost by about 4 million votes (50,905,961 vs 54,524,950)
What about if you live in Wyoming where 55,949 people voted for hillary and 174,248 for Trump?
Why should two states have that much influence on the election? Why is there any reason for the candidates to try and win those states when they can just appeal to states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida and win millions of votes. A true democracy in the US is less fair than the EC even though the EC isn't exactly perfectly fair either
catfaceDo you get paid to shill or are you just retarded? The union wants Trump. The most populous cities want Hillary. Trump won twice as many states as Hillary. Do you understand? Maybe she can go be a mayor in one of those cities and you can move there if you love her so much..
The union wants Trump? Because the state borders work out in such a way that he wins the electoral college the union wants him? Despite losing the popular vote? Can you at least admit to yourself that if a Democrat won the electoral college but lost the popular vote you'd be up in arms? Or are your abilities of self-reflection so poor you can't even admit that?
And I like Hillary? Please, I was a Sanders supporter. I hate both the Republican and Democratic Party. They both serve big corporations on their hands and knee, just like Trump is going to do. Unlike you idiots who were fooled by a conman however, I'm capable of comparing two candidates and realizing which one will do less harm to the country. Have fun with Trump draining that swamp by putting people like Newt Gingrich and Stephen Hadley in power tho lol.
Max_Why should two states have that much influence on the election?
You do realize that a person's vote in California already matters less than people in less populous states like Michigan and Wisconsin (which ended up deciding this election) because the way the electoral college works, right? Please tell me you can grasp this concept. Or are you actually suggesting that "state's rights" matter more than the people of the country as a whole? What the fuck...
[quote=catface]
Do you get paid to shill or are you just retarded? The union wants Trump. The most populous cities want Hillary. Trump won twice as many states as Hillary. Do you understand? Maybe she can go be a mayor in one of those cities and you can move there if you love her so much..[/quote]
The union wants Trump? Because the state borders work out in such a way that he wins the electoral college the union wants him? Despite losing the popular vote? Can you at least admit to yourself that if a Democrat won the electoral college but lost the popular vote you'd be up in arms? Or are your abilities of self-reflection so poor you can't even admit that?
And [i]I[/i] like Hillary? Please, I was a Sanders supporter. I hate both the Republican and Democratic Party. They both serve big corporations on their hands and knee, just like Trump is going to do. Unlike you idiots who were fooled by a conman however, I'm capable of comparing two candidates and realizing which one will do less harm to the country. Have fun with Trump draining that swamp by putting people like Newt Gingrich and Stephen Hadley in power tho lol.
[quote=Max_]Why should two states have that much influence on the election?[/quote]
You do realize that a person's vote in California already matters [i]less[/i] than people in less populous states like Michigan and Wisconsin (which ended up deciding this election) because the way the electoral college works, right? Please tell me you can grasp this concept. Or are you actually suggesting that "state's rights" matter more than the people of the country as a whole? What the fuck...
Max_If California wasn't a state Hilary would have lost the popular vote by 2 million votes (55,049,835 vs 57,165,520 ).
If we remove New York as well she would have lost by about 4 million votes (50,905,961 vs 54,524,950)
What about if you live in Wyoming where 55,949 people voted for hillary and 174,248 for Trump?
Why should two states have that much influence on the election? Why is there any reason for the candidates to try and win those states when they can just appeal to states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida and win millions of votes. A true democracy in the US is less fair than the EC even though the EC isn't exactly perfectly fair either
NY and California, combined, have about 18% of the total population of the US
[quote=Max_]If California wasn't a state Hilary would have lost the popular vote by 2 million votes (55,049,835 vs 57,165,520 ).
If we remove New York as well she would have lost by about 4 million votes (50,905,961 vs 54,524,950)
What about if you live in Wyoming where 55,949 people voted for hillary and 174,248 for Trump?
Why should two states have that much influence on the election? Why is there any reason for the candidates to try and win those states when they can just appeal to states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida and win millions of votes. A true democracy in the US is less fair than the EC even though the EC isn't exactly perfectly fair either[/quote]
NY and California, combined, have about 18% of the total population of the US
whymeoMax_Why should two states have that much influence on the election?
You do realize that a person's vote in California already matters less than people in less populous states like Michigan and Wisconsin (which ended up deciding this election) because the way the electoral college works, right? Please tell me you can grasp this concept. Are you actually suggesting that "state's rights" matter more than the people of the country as a whole? What the fuck...
In the current way the elections are run yes person by person votes don't matter, but if you win California you get 55 votes from the Electoral college. Compared to if you win Wyoming you get 3 electoral votes. Hillary won 16% of the Electoral votes by winning 2/50 states
If the electoral college was removed like you want then the votes in pretty much every other states in the middle of the US don't matter what so ever. As I just said if California and New York weren't states and the people didn't exist Hillary would have lost the popular vote by 4 million votes. If the Electoral college didn't exist there would be no reason to win states like Wyoming, or Delaware.
Nice way to miss my point completely by the way, where did I say state's rights matter more than the people lol
[quote=whymeo][quote=Max_]Why should two states have that much influence on the election?[/quote]
You do realize that a person's vote in California already matters [i]less[/i] than people in less populous states like Michigan and Wisconsin (which ended up deciding this election) because the way the electoral college works, right? Please tell me you can grasp this concept. Are you actually suggesting that "state's rights" matter more than the people of the country as a whole? What the fuck...[/quote]
In the current way the elections are run yes person by person votes don't matter, but if you win California you get 55 votes from the Electoral college. Compared to if you win Wyoming you get 3 electoral votes. Hillary won 16% of the Electoral votes by winning 2/50 states
If the electoral college was removed like you want then the votes in pretty much every other states in the middle of the US don't matter what so ever. As I just said if California and New York weren't states and the people didn't exist Hillary would have lost the popular vote by 4 million votes. If the Electoral college didn't exist there would be no reason to win states like Wyoming, or Delaware.
Nice way to miss my point completely by the way, where did I say state's rights matter more than the people lol
Max_If California wasn't a state Hilary would have lost the popular vote by 2 million votes (55,049,835 vs 57,165,520 ).
If we remove New York as well she would have lost by about 4 million votes (50,905,961 vs 54,524,950)
What about if you live in Wyoming where 55,949 people voted for hillary and 174,248 for Trump?
There are also significant numbers of Republican voters in California and New York whose votes went up in a puff of smoke, along with the Wyoming Democrats, for no reason. They are unrepresented in the election regardless of who won and whether they would have supported them. That isn't democracy.
Max_Why should two states have that much influence on the election? Why is there any reason for the candidates to try and win those states when they can just appeal to states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida and win millions of votes. A true democracy in the US is less fair than the EC even though the EC isn't exactly perfectly fair either
Political parties don't target people based on state, they target them on the value of their vote. People in safe states have practically no vote, people in swing states, particularly undecided voters, have massively more powerful votes. As such they are targeted heavily by political parties to the detriment of literally everyone else in the country.
One man one vote simply erases these unfair distinctions. It activates all those Republican votes that are erased in New York and California and gives the Republicans in those places a reason to actually vote when there is current none and vice versa (Presidentially speaking anyway).
"A state" means nothing, it's the people that live there that matters, it's the people who vote, and people who are affected by the outcome of the vote. Currently huge swathes of the population are of no account to political parties. The popular vote would change that.
[quote=Max_]If California wasn't a state Hilary would have lost the popular vote by 2 million votes (55,049,835 vs 57,165,520 ).
If we remove New York as well she would have lost by about 4 million votes (50,905,961 vs 54,524,950)
What about if you live in Wyoming where 55,949 people voted for hillary and 174,248 for Trump? [/quote]
There are also significant numbers of Republican voters in California and New York whose votes went up in a puff of smoke, along with the Wyoming Democrats, for no reason. They are unrepresented in the election regardless of who won and whether they would have supported them. That isn't democracy.
[quote=Max_]Why should two states have that much influence on the election? Why is there any reason for the candidates to try and win those states when they can just appeal to states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida and win millions of votes. A true democracy in the US is less fair than the EC even though the EC isn't exactly perfectly fair either[/quote]
Political parties don't target people based on state, they target them on the value of their vote. People in safe states have practically no vote, people in swing states, particularly undecided voters, have massively more powerful votes. As such they are targeted heavily by political parties to the detriment of literally everyone else in the country.
One man one vote simply erases these unfair distinctions. It activates all those Republican votes that are erased in New York and California and gives the Republicans in those places a reason to actually vote when there is current none and vice versa (Presidentially speaking anyway).
"A state" means nothing, it's the people that live there that matters, it's the people who vote, and people who are affected by the outcome of the vote. Currently huge swathes of the population are of no account to political parties. The popular vote would change that.
Max_If the electoral college was removed like you want then the votes in pretty much every other states in the middle of the US don't matter what so ever.
They don't cease to matter, they just matter approximately as much as they should do instead of having virtually no value because they are in a safe state or having importance completely out of proportion to their value because they are in a swing state and belong to an undecided voter.
[quote=Max_]If the electoral college was removed like you want then the votes in pretty much every other states in the middle of the US don't matter what so ever.[/quote]
They don't cease to matter, they just matter approximately as much as they should do instead of having virtually no value because they are in a safe state or having importance completely out of proportion to their value because they are in a swing state and belong to an undecided voter.
GentlemanJonMax_If the electoral college was removed like you want then the votes in pretty much every other states in the middle of the US don't matter what so ever.
They don't cease to matter, they just matter approximately as much as they should do instead of having virtually no value because they are in a safe state or having importance completely out of proportion to their value because they are in a swing state and belong to an undecided voter.
the problem is that in a "fair" election California, Texas, New York, and Florida are the ones that matter. They represent the most important states from a population and economic perspective. But at the same time, if you pander to them the other 70% of the population and 50% of the economy would go to shit. You need something to make sure the people who don't actually matter that much don't get shafted
[quote=GentlemanJon][quote=Max_]If the electoral college was removed like you want then the votes in pretty much every other states in the middle of the US don't matter what so ever.[/quote]
They don't cease to matter, they just matter approximately as much as they should do instead of having virtually no value because they are in a safe state or having importance completely out of proportion to their value because they are in a swing state and belong to an undecided voter.[/quote]
the problem is that in a "fair" election California, Texas, New York, and Florida are the ones that matter. They represent the most important states from a population and economic perspective. But at the same time, if you pander to them the other 70% of the population and 50% of the economy would go to shit. You need something to make sure the people who don't actually matter that much don't get shafted
Max_Nice way to miss my point completely by the way, where did I say state's rights matter more than the people lol
Your whole argument clearly shows you think states have some sort of rights and they are more important than the country as a whole. You say it is ridiculous that 16% of the electoral votes went to Clinton for winning New York and California and yet the population of New York and California combined make up 18% of the U.S. Thus, you have to be applying some value to the state itself, not the people in it. The people as a whole do no matter - but states must have something approaching equal representation in your mind. This is clear as you somehow think that two states with 18% of the population do not deserve even 16% of the representation in the electoral college. You have somehow decided that states have more rights than the people that live within them and that is quite frankly insane.
[quote=Max_]Nice way to miss my point completely by the way, where did I say state's rights matter more than the people lol[/quote]
Your whole argument clearly shows you think states have some sort of rights and they are more important than the country as a whole. You say it is ridiculous that 16% of the electoral votes went to Clinton for winning New York and California and yet the population of New York and California combined make up 18% of the U.S. Thus, you have to be applying some value to the state itself, not the people in it. The people as a whole do no matter - but states must have something approaching equal representation in your mind. This is clear as you somehow think that two states with 18% of the population do not deserve even 16% of the representation in the electoral college. You have somehow decided that states have more rights than the people that live within them and that is quite frankly insane.
whymeoMax_Nice way to miss my point completely by the way, where did I say state's rights matter more than the people lol
Your whole argument clearly shows you think states have some sort of rights and they are more important than the country as a whole. You say it is ridiculous that 16% of the electoral votes went to Clinton for winning New York and California and yet the population of New York and California combined make up 18% of the U.S. Thus, you have to be applying some value to the state itself, not the people in it. The people as a whole do no matter - but states must have something approaching equal representation in your mind. This is clear as you somehow think that two states with 18% of the population do not deserve even 16% of the representation in the electoral college. You have somehow decided that states have more rights than the people that live within them and that is quite frankly insane.
No it does not, my argument is is that if we go solely off of popular vote like a true democracy then states with not a lot of people get fucked over. Do you think a candidate is going to try and win Wyoming with their 150,000 votes when they can try and get as many people from California and end up with 5,000,000+ votes? What reasons do they have to try and get a couple thousand of votes vs. a couple of million votes?
It is perfectly reasonable California and New York get 16% of the electoral college votes seeing as they make up 18% of the population. The side the votes go to represent the majority of the state, the people vote for which side the votes go to. States are made up of people, the state votes for what the people vote for.
I have never said that the two states with 18% of the population don't desere 16% of the EC votes. It's perfectly fair how that works, Hillary won California and New York so she got 16% of the votes, the problem is she didn't win Florida or Pennsylvania with their combined 49 electoral votes, or the other 20 states in the middle of the US
You also havne't answered my question of why should pretty much a handful of states (California, Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania) get to essentially decide the president simply because they have the most people? Sure they might make up the majority of the population but they also don't have the same ideology as the rest of the states as seen by Trump catering to the conservatives in the non coastal states.
[quote=whymeo][quote=Max_]Nice way to miss my point completely by the way, where did I say state's rights matter more than the people lol[/quote]
Your whole argument clearly shows you think states have some sort of rights and they are more important than the country as a whole. You say it is ridiculous that 16% of the electoral votes went to Clinton for winning New York and California and yet the population of New York and California combined make up 18% of the U.S. Thus, you have to be applying some value to the state itself, not the people in it. The people as a whole do no matter - but states must have something approaching equal representation in your mind. This is clear as you somehow think that two states with 18% of the population do not deserve even 16% of the representation in the electoral college. You have somehow decided that states have more rights than the people that live within them and that is quite frankly insane.[/quote]
No it does not, my argument is is that if we go solely off of popular vote like a true democracy then states with not a lot of people get fucked over. Do you think a candidate is going to try and win Wyoming with their 150,000 votes when they can try and get as many people from California and end up with 5,000,000+ votes? What reasons do they have to try and get a couple thousand of votes vs. a couple of million votes?
It is perfectly reasonable California and New York get 16% of the electoral college votes seeing as they make up 18% of the population. The side the votes go to represent the majority of the state, the people vote for which side the votes go to. States are made up of people, the state votes for what the people vote for.
I have never said that the two states with 18% of the population don't desere 16% of the EC votes. It's perfectly fair how that works, Hillary won California and New York so she got 16% of the votes, the problem is she didn't win Florida or Pennsylvania with their combined 49 electoral votes, or the other 20 states in the middle of the US
You also havne't answered my question of why should pretty much a handful of states (California, Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania) get to essentially decide the president simply because they have the most people? Sure they might make up the majority of the population but they also don't have the same ideology as the rest of the states as seen by Trump catering to the conservatives in the non coastal states.
Max_You also havne't answered my question of why should pretty much a handful of states (California, Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania) get to essentially decide the president simply because they have the most people? Sure they might make up the majority of the population but they also don't have the same ideology as the rest of the states as seen by Trump catering to the conservatives in the non coastal states.
The problems you're getting at aren't something that the electoral college are holding back, they're problems that exist because of our primitive form of democracy. Most other democracies do a much better job at representing parties based on what percentage of the vote they get, not just representing the winner like we do here in the U.S. That's the real issue here, and yes, those issues would not be gone if you got rid of the electoral college. However, that doesn't mean that the electoral college is not also a ludicrous system.
[quote=Max_]You also havne't answered my question of why should pretty much a handful of states (California, Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania) get to essentially decide the president simply because they have the most people? Sure they might make up the majority of the population but they also don't have the same ideology as the rest of the states as seen by Trump catering to the conservatives in the non coastal states.[/quote]
The problems you're getting at aren't something that the electoral college are holding back, they're problems that exist because of our primitive form of democracy. Most other democracies do a much better job at representing parties based on what percentage of the vote they get, not just representing the winner like we do here in the U.S. That's the real issue here, and yes, those issues would not be gone if you got rid of the electoral college. However, that doesn't mean that the electoral college is not also a ludicrous system.
Ok as vehemently against the electoral college I am this is obviously going nowhere so let's change the subject to this
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/13/501937200/trump-taps-reince-priebus-as-chief-of-staff-steve-bannon-as-chief-strategist
Steve Bannon still in a position of power...smh
Ok as vehemently against the electoral college I am this is obviously going nowhere so let's change the subject to this
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/13/501937200/trump-taps-reince-priebus-as-chief-of-staff-steve-bannon-as-chief-strategist
Steve Bannon still in a position of power...smh
mustardoverlordOk as vehemently against the electoral college I am this is obviously going nowhere so let's change the subject to this
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/13/501937200/trump-taps-reince-priebus-as-chief-of-staff-steve-bannon-as-chief-strategist
Steve Bannon still in a position of power...smh
drain the swamp LUL
[quote=mustardoverlord]Ok as vehemently against the electoral college I am this is obviously going nowhere so let's change the subject to this
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/13/501937200/trump-taps-reince-priebus-as-chief-of-staff-steve-bannon-as-chief-strategist
Steve Bannon still in a position of power...smh[/quote]
drain the swamp LUL
It's been obvious for months his cabinet and policies would all be neocon establishment direction considering his very sub par grasp of both his own policy substance and how the political machine even works.
Bannon is as much anti-establishment as his campaign finance manager who is also ex-Goldman Sachs.
It's still early so maybe he can still give me some hope that I had but it looks like the populist right movement has been played hardcore by someone who is going to be a sockpuppet for the republican establishment.
It's been obvious for months his cabinet and policies would all be neocon establishment direction considering his very sub par grasp of both his own policy substance and how the political machine even works.
Bannon is as much anti-establishment as his campaign finance manager who is also ex-Goldman Sachs.
It's still early so maybe he can still give me some hope that I had but it looks like the populist right movement has been played hardcore by someone who is going to be a sockpuppet for the republican establishment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM
eeethe problem is that in a "fair" election California, Texas, New York, and Florida are the ones that matter. They represent the most important states from a population and economic perspective. But at the same time, if you pander to them the other 70% of the population and 50% of the economy would go to shit. You need something to make sure the people who don't actually matter that much don't get shafted
How can the majority in a popular vote be marginalised? They are going to win the vote. This argument means that New York and California right now should be about to face disaster because their candidate lost. But that's not going to happen is it?
What I don't understand is why people insist on framing the idea of one man one vote in terms of states. They simply cease to be the issue. Individuals will vote. They won't all continue to vote for the same party, the idea that just because a state has always solidly voted one way means that entire the populace of it would continue to do so is wrong.
Take California for example, solidly Democrat but in a popular vote system the Republican party would be highly motivated to start appealing to those voters. There are definitely already Republicans in California, and there will definitely be non-voters and Democrat voters that they can win. Party loyalties aren't absolute and voter loyalty is highly elastic. Republicans will start to target those voters, and it works vice versa in other places. It won't hurt either party, California is a highly populous state so there are huge numbers of Republican votes to gain and vice versa elsewhere.
Political parties don't target voters on the basis of left or right, they haven't done for decades. Right now parties completely ignore huge numbers of concerns of voters in states they can't win so they end up in highly polarised positions. The popular vote would change that, they would have to address the concerns that matter to every voter. They wouldn't be able to say things that piss off huge swathes of the population and expect to win so incredibly divisive campaigning would be much more difficult.
If in your example there is 70% of the population that one party ignores they are dead in the water, the competition will sweep them up and win. I also don't recognise the idea that people in cities have a set of interests that involves screwing both the rest of the country and it's economy. There isn't a massive urban/rural split, on the contrary politicians would be highly motivated to find policies that are beneficial to as many people as possible.
There is no reason to believe that some kind of demagogue will arise who will wreak havoc along those lines, we're talking about a bedtime story monster at this point.
[quote=eee]the problem is that in a "fair" election California, Texas, New York, and Florida are the ones that matter. They represent the most important states from a population and economic perspective. But at the same time, if you pander to them the other 70% of the population and 50% of the economy would go to shit. You need something to make sure the people who don't actually matter that much don't get shafted[/quote]
How can the majority in a popular vote be marginalised? They are going to win the vote. This argument means that New York and California right now should be about to face disaster because their candidate lost. But that's not going to happen is it?
What I don't understand is why people insist on framing the idea of one man one vote in terms of states. They simply cease to be the issue. Individuals will vote. They won't all continue to vote for the same party, the idea that just because a state has always solidly voted one way means that entire the populace of it would continue to do so is wrong.
Take California for example, solidly Democrat but in a popular vote system the Republican party would be highly motivated to start appealing to those voters. There are definitely already Republicans in California, and there will definitely be non-voters and Democrat voters that they can win. Party loyalties aren't absolute and voter loyalty is highly elastic. Republicans will start to target those voters, and it works vice versa in other places. It won't hurt either party, California is a highly populous state so there are huge numbers of Republican votes to gain and vice versa elsewhere.
Political parties don't target voters on the basis of left or right, they haven't done for decades. Right now parties completely ignore huge numbers of concerns of voters in states they can't win so they end up in highly polarised positions. The popular vote would change that, they would have to address the concerns that matter to every voter. They wouldn't be able to say things that piss off huge swathes of the population and expect to win so incredibly divisive campaigning would be much more difficult.
If in your example there is 70% of the population that one party ignores they are dead in the water, the competition will sweep them up and win. I also don't recognise the idea that people in cities have a set of interests that involves screwing both the rest of the country and it's economy. There isn't a massive urban/rural split, on the contrary politicians would be highly motivated to find policies that are beneficial to as many people as possible.
There is no reason to believe that some kind of demagogue will arise who will wreak havoc along those lines, we're talking about a bedtime story monster at this point.
[quote=catface][quote=whymeo]stuff[/quote]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/MB65XZK.png[/img][/quote]
[img]https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14993320_1350227211656820_4170752114093551226_n.jpg?oh=d569b651a46ca3d7f3cb8ecec55ec465&oe=58BEB994[/img]
???
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798519600413601792
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798521053551140864
if trump said it it must be true I guess
if trump said it it must be true I guess
we still discussing this??
get over it
we still discussing this??
get over it
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413
b-but hillary took saudi money!!!!!!!!!!!
ladies and gentlemen, your next secretary of state
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413
b-but hillary took saudi money!!!!!!!!!!!
ladies and gentlemen, your next secretary of state
Can somebody give me a quick rundown of what happened? Apparently I missed it and there are 28 fucking pages to read.
Can somebody give me a quick rundown of what happened? Apparently I missed it and there are 28 fucking pages to read.
How did you "miss" the presidential election
How did you "miss" the presidential election
THEBILLDOZERHow did you "miss" the presidential election
I was in jail for voter fraud.
[quote=THEBILLDOZER]How did you "miss" the presidential election[/quote]
I was in jail for voter fraud.
But seriously though, what is this thread about?
But seriously though, what is this thread about?
niveriCan somebody give me a quick rundown of what happened? Apparently I missed it and there are 28 fucking pages to read.
Read all 29 pages, its better that way.
[quote=niveri]Can somebody give me a quick rundown of what happened? Apparently I missed it and there are 28 fucking pages to read.[/quote]
Read all 29 pages, its better that way.
how is this not fucking locked lmao
how is this not fucking locked lmao