EA Forums - Banner

Best wishes today for our American Tappers

Replies

  • parkna1234
    126 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    I myself posted several solutions that so far I don't see have been countered. As @barrymcerlea has pointed out, being from a city should not mean your vote should count less. It should count the same as anyone else, and anything other than this is basically geographical discrimination.

    I don't see how those maps in any way make a point for the Electoral College. So there are bigger parts of continuous land where the Republicans got a majority- so what? Why does a length of land being continuous and not broken up come into it?
  • simp7fan wrote: »
    Don't forget that the U.S. presidential elections have almost always lined up with the popular vote, so this changes nothing but eliminating the EC upset.

    A quick look at the math on this point is actually a bit sobering. In 5 of the republic’s 54 presidential contests, candidates captured office without having won the popular vote; that’s around 9%. Alternatively, if you consider that there have been 45 presidents, that means that more than 10% of them initially came into office in spite of having lost the popular vote.

  • parkna1234
    126 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    @Krusty Brand

    That certainly is sobering (well, if I drank it would be!!). America is a very young country if one thinks about it, and so to already have had that many Presidents who should have lost is rather worrying. 10% really isn't a good percentage...
  • Yeah, it's beyond the 3% error rate of polls. That means it's beyond the level we should continue to ignore.

    The sixcalifornias thing isn't exactly going on here. One clue: some of the links on the site end in a 404...

    It would never happen, either. As they point out that would get us 12 Senatorial votes.... Hah, it would never get approved. I can imagine a two state split being considered, but not six.
    Here is my signature. Or maybe it's not.
  • Be glad trump was elected and not the criminal clinton family. I don't expect Trump to fix things overnight. There is a lot of work to do. Not a big fan of his environmental policies; but honestly it's my understanding the EPA is corrupt to the core. Course everything is. Permits in my area are bought and paid for in addition to a "who you know" basis. His "drain the swamp" mantra is a near impossibility to do. It would be nice if he started with saving the tax payer some money by taking away LIFE-TIME SECURITY for the bush /obama/clinton families AND THEIR KIDS...how much is that costing tax payers???? I doubt who would but those people have not earned life time security forces; they don't deserve it.
  • IckabodSchrek
    5912 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    @parkna1234 Based on your comments, I'm guessing that you live in one of those larger cities. The only thing I can ask is try to imagine living in one of those more rural areas and your concerns were never taken into consideration, maybe never even heard. What if the rural area wanted to get rid of the EC but it was consistently voted down because voters in the larger cities wanted the opposite. Then imagine that you are paying federal income tax yet most of the money was being spent in those large cities where you don't live.

    @KrustyBrand Most of your comments have already been pointed out in this thread by @ericborovay, myself and others, so we are just talking in circles. Further to include the current election in your statics when the votes aren't even all counted yet is moot.

    @sim7fan I agree, I don't see California ever splitting into six, and like you, I do see a two way divide. And that map and the comments/efforts toward divisions like with the sixcalifornias show that areas of California are frustrated and feeling unrepresented and is what I predict will happen to large areas of the US if the EC were to be abolished.

    Again, I will say that I agree that when the popular vote doesn't agree with the electoral vote, it feels highly unfair. But I also recognize its need and why the founding fathers put it in place. I think Maine and Nebraska have it right and we need to get rid of the current situation where one candidate takes the electoral count of the whole state. I can see this happening with both California and Colorado in the not to distant future. This would balance the popular vote with the electoral vote yet ensure that campaigning candidates were listening to the concerns of all the people.
    Post edited by IckabodSchrek on
    DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!
  • @KrustyBrand Most of your comments have already been pointed out in this thread by @ericborovay, myself and others, so we are just talking in circles. Further to include the current election in your statics when the votes aren't even all counted yet is moot.

    Not including the results of the 2016 race would alter the aforementioned values calculated by roughly a percentage point. Not nearly enough to change the thrust of my argument. Vote counting and certification will go on for some time (especially in the more populous states), but it’s clear that Clinton is going to win the popular vote. The only question at this point is what the final margin will be. As of yesterday, it had risen to around 1.4 million votes. Clinton’s popular-vote margin over Trump is now greater than that of Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and that of John Kennedy over Nixon in 1960.
    Again, I will say that I agree that when the popular vote doesn't agree with the electoral vote, it feels highly unfair. But I also recognize its need and why the founding fathers put it in place.

    Perhaps it feels unfair because it is unfair. This will probably offend some people, but it seems as though the people supporting the electoral college are rationalizing its existence simply because it got them the result they wanted.

    When people laud the merits of electoral college by invoking the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, it makes me wonder if they truly understand how the college was originally intended to operate. It's primary purpose was to buffer the republic from the passions of the unruly masses by having the citizenry vote for wise men (the electors) who would then get to deliberate together and choose the most qualified person. (In other words, it was ironically designed to protect us from demagogues like Trump.)
  • Good point KB. And just who would you describe as being the unruly masses currently?
    DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!
  • Good point KB. And just who would you describe as being the unruly masses currently?

    Just as a start, perhaps this guy...

    anti_muslim_protester.jpg


  • That really looks like "unruly masses". Why don't you post a pic of the rioting on the other side?
    DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!
  • parkna1234 Based on your comments, I'm guessing that you live in one of those larger cities. The only thing I can ask is try to imagine living in one of those more rural areas and your concerns were never taken into consideration, maybe never even heard. What if the rural area wanted to get rid of the EC but it was consistently voted down because voters in the larger cities wanted the opposite. Then imagine that you are paying federal income tax yet most of the money was being spent in those large cities where you don't live.

    Please don't make assumptions about me, especially since they are actually completely wrong, based on my opinion. This seems awfully like an attempt to try and exclude me from the conversation.

    I've already pointed out several options for ensuring that rural people get a say, and so far the only thing you've suggested is 'civil war,' which is a rather large stretch.

    Other countries do not have an electoral college system. Their rural communities still get plenty of say.

    There are other ways in which this scenario of rural voters not getting a say doesn't make sense in the first place, If, say, there was a proportional representation system, parties would indeed have to listen to rural voters, because if they didn't they would be risking a very possible loss.

    You still haven't explained why some voters should be seen as more important than others. They are not. Rural voters are not more important than city voters. You're basically saying that someone should be considered not worthy of being heard if they are surrounded by more people. That isn't right.

    Again, other countries do not have an electoral college system. The rural voters there are not forgotten. Why would they be? They make up a massive part of the country.

    Take, for example, the British Brexit vote. Many of the big cities, such as London, overwhelmingly voted to stay, and guess what? The Leave voters were more numerous, all those 'forgotten' rural voters.


    Again, I will say that I agree that when the popular vote doesn't agree with the electoral vote, it feels highly unfair. But I also recognize its need and why the founding fathers put it in place. I think Maine and Nebraska have it right and we need to get rid of the current situation where one candidate takes the electoral count of the whole state. I can see this happening with both California and Colorado in the not to distant future. This would balance the popular vote with the electoral vote yet ensure that campaigning candidates were listening to the concerns of all the people.

    It doesn't feel highly unfair, it is highly unfair. It is undemocratic. Rural voters are basically in the EC system an 'elite.' While the Trumpeters go on about the 'big city elites,' they are wrong under the system America currently has.

    Good point KB. And just who would you describe as being the unruly masses currently?

    I really, really don't want to say it... but you're kind of being a bit of a jerk here.

    Who would you describe as being the unruly masses? Who is taunting their minority students by telling them that now they'll have to go back where they came from? Who is spreading memes telling Clinton supporters to commit suicide?

    No, protests are not 'unruly masses.' They are a democratic right and a massive part of free speech protected under the First Amendment. Don't tell me that the violence is typical of the current protests, because I've heard that defence before and I know for a fact that it isn't.
  • IckabodSchrek
    5912 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    parkna1234 wrote: »
    parkna1234 Based on your comments, I'm guessing that you live in one of those larger cities. The only thing I can ask is try to imagine living in one of those more rural areas and your concerns were never taken into consideration, maybe never even heard. What if the rural area wanted to get rid of the EC but it was consistently voted down because voters in the larger cities wanted the opposite. Then imagine that you are paying federal income tax yet most of the money was being spent in those large cities where you don't live.

    Please don't make assumptions about me, especially since they are actually completely wrong, based on my opinion. This seems awfully like an attempt to try and exclude me from the conversation.

    I've already pointed out several options for ensuring that rural people get a say, and so far the only thing you've suggested is 'civil war,' which is a rather large stretch.

    Other countries do not have an electoral college system. Their rural communities still get plenty of say.

    There are other ways in which this scenario of rural voters not getting a say doesn't make sense in the first place, If, say, there was a proportional representation system, parties would indeed have to listen to rural voters, because if they didn't they would be risking a very possible loss.

    You still haven't explained why some voters should be seen as more important than others. They are not. Rural voters are not more important than city voters. You're basically saying that someone should be considered not worthy of being heard if they are surrounded by more people. That isn't right.

    Again, other countries do not have an electoral college system. The rural voters there are not forgotten. Why would they be? They make up a massive part of the country.

    Take, for example, the British Brexit vote. Many of the big cities, such as London, overwhelmingly voted to stay, and guess what? The Leave voters were more numerous, all those 'forgotten' rural voters.


    Again, I will say that I agree that when the popular vote doesn't agree with the electoral vote, it feels highly unfair. But I also recognize its need and why the founding fathers put it in place. I think Maine and Nebraska have it right and we need to get rid of the current situation where one candidate takes the electoral count of the whole state. I can see this happening with both California and Colorado in the not to distant future. This would balance the popular vote with the electoral vote yet ensure that campaigning candidates were listening to the concerns of all the people.

    It doesn't feel highly unfair, it is highly unfair. It is undemocratic. Rural voters are basically in the EC system an 'elite.' While the Trumpeters go on about the 'big city elites,' they are wrong under the system America currently has.

    Good point KB. And just who would you describe as being the unruly masses currently?

    I really, really don't want to say it... but you're kind of being a bit of a jerk here.

    Who would you describe as being the unruly masses? Who is taunting their minority students by telling them that now they'll have to go back where they came from? Who is spreading memes telling Clinton supporters to commit suicide?

    No, protests are not 'unruly masses.' They are a democratic right and a massive part of free speech protected under the First Amendment. Don't tell me that the violence is typical of the current protests, because I've heard that defence before and I know for a fact that it isn't.
    parkna1234 wrote: »
    parkna1234 Based on your comments, I'm guessing that you live in one of those larger cities. The only thing I can ask is try to imagine living in one of those more rural areas and your concerns were never taken into consideration, maybe never even heard. What if the rural area wanted to get rid of the EC but it was consistently voted down because voters in the larger cities wanted the opposite. Then imagine that you are paying federal income tax yet most of the money was being spent in those large cities where you don't live.

    Please don't make assumptions about me, especially since they are actually completely wrong, based on my opinion. This seems awfully like an attempt to try and exclude me from the conversation.

    I've already pointed out several options for ensuring that rural people get a say, and so far the only thing you've suggested is 'civil war,' which is a rather large stretch.

    Other countries do not have an electoral college system. Their rural communities still get plenty of say.

    There are other ways in which this scenario of rural voters not getting a say doesn't make sense in the first place, If, say, there was a proportional representation system, parties would indeed have to listen to rural voters, because if they didn't they would be risking a very possible loss.

    You still haven't explained why some voters should be seen as more important than others. They are not. Rural voters are not more important than city voters. You're basically saying that someone should be considered not worthy of being heard if they are surrounded by more people. That isn't right.

    Again, other countries do not have an electoral college system. The rural voters there are not forgotten. Why would they be? They make up a massive part of the country.

    Take, for example, the British Brexit vote. Many of the big cities, such as London, overwhelmingly voted to stay, and guess what? The Leave voters were more numerous, all those 'forgotten' rural voters.


    Again, I will say that I agree that when the popular vote doesn't agree with the electoral vote, it feels highly unfair. But I also recognize its need and why the founding fathers put it in place. I think Maine and Nebraska have it right and we need to get rid of the current situation where one candidate takes the electoral count of the whole state. I can see this happening with both California and Colorado in the not to distant future. This would balance the popular vote with the electoral vote yet ensure that campaigning candidates were listening to the concerns of all the people.

    It doesn't feel highly unfair, it is highly unfair. It is undemocratic. Rural voters are basically in the EC system an 'elite.' While the Trumpeters go on about the 'big city elites,' they are wrong under the system America currently has.

    Good point KB. And just who would you describe as being the unruly masses currently?

    I really, really don't want to say it... but you're kind of being a bit of a jerk here.

    Who would you describe as being the unruly masses? Who is taunting their minority students by telling them that now they'll have to go back where they came from? Who is spreading memes telling Clinton supporters to commit suicide?

    No, protests are not 'unruly masses.' They are a democratic right and a massive part of free speech protected under the First Amendment. Don't tell me that the violence is typical of the current protests, because I've heard that defence before and I know for a fact that it isn't.

    This is exactly what is currently wrong in this county. Someone disagreed with you so you have to make it personal. You have just made any argument invalid by calling me a "jerk" for not agreeing with you. I would suggest you research a bill that was introduced to the Iowa House yesterday named, "S uck it up, Buttercup". Now excuse me...I need to go pet a pony.
    Post edited by IckabodSchrek on
    DeesToonTown in Crawl to the Finish #The Grumple Is Free!

  • Not including the results of the 2016 race would alter the aforementioned values calculated by roughly a percentage point. Not nearly enough to change the thrust of my argument. Vote counting and certification will go on for some time (especially in the more populous states), but it’s clear that Clinton is going to win the popular vote. The only question at this point is what the final margin will be. As of yesterday, it had risen to around 1.4 million votes. Clinton’s popular-vote margin over Trump is now greater than that of Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and that of John Kennedy over Nixon in 1960.

    Yes, when Clinton is on track to break records with her voter turnout, that's when it becomes not just unfair, not just undemocratic, but completely ridiculous.


    Perhaps it feels unfair because it is unfair. This will probably offend some people, but it seems as though the people supporting the electoral college are rationalizing its existence simply because it got them the result they wanted.

    Yes, that's very much the impression I get, including on this thread.

    Ickabod, I don't like to make assumptions, but this is what it seems like you're doing (especially with the random digs at non-Trump voters).



    When people laud the merits of electoral college by invoking the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, it makes me wonder if they truly understand how the college was originally intended to operate. It's primary purpose was to buffer the republic from the passions of the unruly masses by having the citizenry vote for wise men (the electors) who would then get to deliberate together and choose the most qualified person. (In other words, it was ironically designed to protect us from demagogues like Trump.)

    Exactly! The point of it in the first place was to prevent people like Trump coming to power, and a lot of people don't seem to understand that. By the Founding Fathers' own ideas, they would see the EC voting against Trump to be their duty, not the opposite. Tradition seems to have overtaken the point of certain things, and there is the inherent danger of becoming set in our ways- the original facts are ignored in favour of random 'tradition.'





  • KrustyBrand
    15340 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    That really looks like "unruly masses". Why don't you post a pic of the rioting on the other side?

    This may be a case of apples and oranges. First, to your point about the anti-Trump “rioters”. I think it’s critical to make a clear distinction between protesters exercising their legal First Amendment rights and those actually engaged in violent behavior. Am I concerned about the latter? Absolutely, but I’m also concerned about Trumpian attempts to de-legitimize the very real concerns of these protestors by focusing exclusively on that violent behavior. Breitbart has already trotted out the usual talking points in this regard — protestors are communist-led, blah, blah, blah.

    Second, when you’re talking about “unruly masses” (perhaps an unfortunate word choice on my part) you seem to be be thinking more along the lines of peasants with pitchforks storming the Bastille. That’s not really what I was talking about nor is it what the framers necessarily had in mind. Guys like Hamilton were worried that the passions of the credulous might too easily be inflamed by demagogues appealing to their baser instincts, or, in Hamilton’s words, by individuals with "talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity”. Hence the use of electors. Of course, the electoral college as it stands today bears only a passing resemblance to the institution as originally established. And that’s the real point I was trying make earlier — I truly doubt that Trump backers who are defending the electroral college by appealing to ideas about the “wisdom of the Founding Fathers” would want to see the electoral college work as originally set up by those Fathers.
    Post edited by KrustyBrand on
  • KrustyBrand
    15340 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    I would suggest you research a bill that was introduced to the Iowa House yesterday named, "S uck it up, Buttercup". Now excuse me...I need to go pet a pony.

    This is exactly the sort of political activity that I find worrisome. Ickabod refers to a proposal by Iowa Representative Bobby Kaufman. Kaufman has been in the news before when he made some semi-hysterical claims about an LGBTQ conference on bullying. He is now floating an idea for a bill that would cut budgets at public universities that spend extra money on students upset about the presidential election. Never mind that no such schools seem to exist. Spokespersons at the University of Northern Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Iowa all noted in response that no funds were spent on student sessions discussing the election outcome. Kaufman will probably never get around to actually drafting this bill but in the meantime he’ll have achieved his goal of stifling free speech and instilling fear in those he perceives as his political opponents.


    Post edited by KrustyBrand on
  • This is exactly what is currently wrong in this county. Someone disagreed with you so you have to make it personal. You have just made any argument invalid by calling me a "jerk" for not agreeing with you. I would suggest you research a bill that was introduced to the Iowa House yesterday named, "S uck it up, Buttercup". Now excuse me...I need to go pet a pony.

    My... God. Calm down, man, for goodness sake. There is no need for this kind of reaction, but you seem more recently to be intent on turning what was a rather thoughtful and polite discussion into a snide commentary. You're getting more and more snide as the discussion goes on.

    I did not call you a 'jerk' for your opinion, I called you one because you were making a snide dig; your tone was the problem, not the content.

    Perhaps try responding to our actual points, you know, like how you started in this discussion.

    What is the point in mentioning this bill? Will it defend the Electoral College? Will it refute our points?

  • Let's not forget about things like gerrymandering and gentrification that over time creates a divide in the local communities and strengthens one party over another in different areas. So when we see the popular vote what we don't see is that orchestrated political division. I think a direct popular vote is the only way to avoid that undemocratic situation we're in today. I think this proposal to keep the EC but to pledge those votes to the popular winner might be okay since it would heed the voice of the people but keep the backup possibility of changing their votes to keep out despots. (It doesn't look like that will ever get used but it's nice to know it's there, delusionally....)
    Here is my signature. Or maybe it's not.
  • I like how Canada has decided to change their voting system to be more democratic, with some people who's party could actually be negatively affected by the change still being strong advocates for it. Why can't that happen in the US? More of a toxic political culture full of obstruction and focus on tradition I suppose.
  • That's exactly the sort of bill that worried me- it shows that some Republicans want to shut down free speech, while also freaking out if you dare challenge their second amendment.

    I mean, what is wrong with holding student sessions to help vulnerable people talk and cope with an admitted sexual assaulter being elected President? If students want to discuss this, fine. What are the specifics of this bill, because it sounds like more paranoia, especially since, as you say KrustyBrand, these sessions didn't even exist in the way this ridiculous politician claims.
  • They could bypass it by creating a course about Trump, like they do where they study the Simpsons. http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/photos/15-bizarre-college-courses/simpsons-and-philosophy

    Threatening free speech is not a new thing under Trump. I do dislike the cry-spaces, though, but not necessarily officially. I think the safe-spaces got to go, because they are an affront to free speech.
    Here is my signature. Or maybe it's not.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.