Individual-1 (Donald Trump)

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
T-Bone
A Cut Above
 
User avatar
Joined: February 18, 2011
Location: Shrug City
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17375  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:30 am

I actually like the electoral college system...just not as a winner-take-all. If we get rid of the electoral college, then only New York, California, and Texas will matter during presidential elections. I think having the votes proportional preserves the benefits of the system without giving way more advantage to people in less populated states.
Trying the Twitch thing out, help me get to 50!

"Playing in a Newbie game doesn't count" ~ PenguinPower, Feb 2019

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17376  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:33 am

In post 17376, T-Bone wrote:I actually like the electoral college system...just not as a winner-take-all. If we get rid of the electoral college, then only New York, California, and Texas will matter during presidential elections. I think having the votes proportional preserves the benefits of the system without giving way more advantage to people in less populated states.


I think the opposite happens. I think it substantially broadens the national nature of the campaign. It's possible that more candidate time might go to these populous states (though why we should dislike that more than them focusing on Ohio is a legitimate question), but the campaigns themselves likely expand.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17377  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:37 am

To put it another way, why is it so bad that candidates would suddenly want to focus on the greatest number of people? Isn't that what a national election should be?

And if it were decided proportionally with the electoral college, that still brings up the question of why if I moved to Wyoming, my voting power goes up 366%.
.

Thestatusquo
Shea
 
User avatar
Joined: July 28, 2006
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #17378  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:44 am

Yes, the way that the electoral college forces me to listen to people pontificate on the great benefits of corn subsidies every 4 years is really my biggest problem with the current system if I'm being honest.
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi
only 5 slots left in Bad Idea Mafia!
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17379  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:47 am

That's probably more about the primary system. Whether we'd have the same primary system without the electoral college may be a question, but I think it's still likely.
.

Panzerjager
Hell in a Cell
 
User avatar
Joined: January 05, 2007
Location: somewhere better than you =*
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17380  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:06 am

In post 17377, zoraster wrote:
In post 17376, T-Bone wrote:I actually like the electoral college system...just not as a winner-take-all. If we get rid of the electoral college, then only New York, California, and Texas will matter during presidential elections. I think having the votes proportional preserves the benefits of the system without giving way more advantage to people in less populated states.


I think the opposite happens. I think it substantially broadens the national nature of the campaign. It's possible that more candidate time might go to these populous states (though why we should dislike that more than them focusing on Ohio is a legitimate question), but the campaigns themselves likely expand.


I think either way is fine. Places with more people should be more important than places that have an equal amount of racistsconservatives to liberals. I wouldn't trust Ohio to pick what I'm having for breakfast, why should I have to trust them to pick my president. And aside from bizarre instances where Chicago just decided not to vote for governor(or whatever that was), most times individual votes in non-battleground states. I can vote until I'm blue in the face, that's not gonna change where California's votes go. That's the same in like 80% of the state's in the union.
Sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich.

GTKAS

Flubbernugget
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: June 26, 2014
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17381  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:15 am

On a less cynical note, let's say that a liberal presidential candidate pushes a massive pro-green campaign that involves EU-esque gas taxes. They only campaign in densely populated areas. That's great for the environment, but could absolutely destroy a lot of rural areas where public transportation may not be feasible. I don't think saying "well they're not the majority" is a fair assessment there.

Thestatusquo
Shea
 
User avatar
Joined: July 28, 2006
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #17382  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:16 am

In post 17382, Flubbernugget wrote:On a less cynical note, let's say that a liberal presidential candidate pushes a massive pro-green campaign that involves EU-esque gas taxes. They only campaign in densely populated areas. That's great for the environment, but could absolutely destroy a lot of rural areas where public transportation may not be feasible. I don't think saying "well they're not the majority" is a fair assessment there.

Gas is relatively underpriced economically speaking.
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi
only 5 slots left in Bad Idea Mafia!
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi

shaft.ed
dem.agogue
 
User avatar
Joined: August 15, 2007
Location: St. Louis
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17383  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:17 am

In post 17382, Flubbernugget wrote:On a less cynical note, let's say that a liberal presidential candidate pushes a massive pro-green campaign that involves EU-esque gas taxes. They only campaign in densely populated areas. That's great for the environment, but could absolutely destroy a lot of rural areas where public transportation may not be feasible. I don't think saying "well they're not the majority" is a fair assessment there.
I'd trade that to stop 100 people a day dying needlessly from guns because of tiny, vocal and armed minority

Thestatusquo
Shea
 
User avatar
Joined: July 28, 2006
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #17384  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:21 am

I mean, honestly, the purpose of the gas tax is to make gas actually cost the amount of its true cost. Theres a tragedy of the commons problem here, where those who consume gas do not pay for the negative externalities it costs, which are very real and huge.

Making gas cost more doesn't actually make gas more expensive, it just shifts the burden of who pays the cost onto the people who actually use it rather than placing it on the government and the healthcare system.
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi
only 5 slots left in Bad Idea Mafia!
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17385  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:21 am

In post 17382, Flubbernugget wrote:On a less cynical note, let's say that a liberal presidential candidate pushes a massive pro-green campaign that involves EU-esque gas taxes. They only campaign in densely populated areas. That's great for the environment, but could absolutely destroy a lot of rural areas where public transportation may not be feasible. I don't think saying "well they're not the majority" is a fair assessment there.


The Senate is specifically designed to offer an anti-democratic counterbalance to that concern.
.

shaft.ed
dem.agogue
 
User avatar
Joined: August 15, 2007
Location: St. Louis
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17386  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:22 am

not to mention the other myriad ways the rural lifestyle is subsidized

Kublai Khan
Khan Man
 
User avatar
Joined: August 05, 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL

Post Post #17387  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:27 am

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... this-week/

Given how little Fox News mentions Kushner, I wonder if people knew that he works in the White House and/or is married to Trump's daughter.
Occasionally intellectually honest

shaft.ed
dem.agogue
 
User avatar
Joined: August 15, 2007
Location: St. Louis
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17388  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:34 am

In post 17388, Kublai Khan wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/01/how-often-the-cable-news-networks-have-discussed-jared-kushner-in-prime-time-this-week/

Given how little Fox News mentions Kushner, I wonder if people knew that he works in the White House and/or is married to Trump's daughter.

see
obvious liberal bias as the fake news networks are trumpeting this non-story

Kublai Khan
Khan Man
 
User avatar
Joined: August 05, 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL

Post Post #17389  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:49 am

Yeah I posted it because it highlights the divide. Is it a story for a close family member of Trump, who has been at the center of many policy decisions had his security clearance demoted and various other things happen that would normally signal a departure? I would say yeah.
Occasionally intellectually honest

Donald Trump
Watcher
 
User avatar
Joined: August 08, 2015
Location: Trump Palace
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17390  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:42 pm

Don't worry about it.
Who's got two thumbs and is very rich?

T-Bone
A Cut Above
 
User avatar
Joined: February 18, 2011
Location: Shrug City
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17391  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:52 pm

In post 17377, zoraster wrote:
In post 17376, T-Bone wrote:I actually like the electoral college system...just not as a winner-take-all. If we get rid of the electoral college, then only New York, California, and Texas will matter during presidential elections. I think having the votes proportional preserves the benefits of the system without giving way more advantage to people in less populated states.


I think the opposite happens. I think it substantially broadens the national nature of the campaign. It's possible that more candidate time might go to these populous states (though why we should dislike that more than them focusing on Ohio is a legitimate question), but the campaigns themselves likely expand.


Spoken like a California elite :P

No, I think if the election shifts to a pure FPTP popular vote election, that candidates don't really focus on voters outside of major cities. We already see what campaigns do when there is only a limited number of places they need to visit to win an election...candidates just visit those places (and then NY and LA to rub noses with rich people). I don't like this model, because ideally, Presidental candidates should see value in visiting as many places as possible.

Changing to the popular vote would shift that model to different places...but it probably means candidates don't spend any time away from the coasts.

That's the angle I'm coming from. I want campaigns to be able to represent the entire country, and while they don't do it under the winner-take-all of the electoral college, I think that will be reduced on a simple FPTP popular vote.
Trying the Twitch thing out, help me get to 50!

"Playing in a Newbie game doesn't count" ~ PenguinPower, Feb 2019

Thestatusquo
Shea
 
User avatar
Joined: July 28, 2006
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #17392  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:53 pm

In post 17392, T-Bone wrote:
In post 17377, zoraster wrote:
In post 17376, T-Bone wrote:I actually like the electoral college system...just not as a winner-take-all. If we get rid of the electoral college, then only New York, California, and Texas will matter during presidential elections. I think having the votes proportional preserves the benefits of the system without giving way more advantage to people in less populated states.


I think the opposite happens. I think it substantially broadens the national nature of the campaign. It's possible that more candidate time might go to these populous states (though why we should dislike that more than them focusing on Ohio is a legitimate question), but the campaigns themselves likely expand.


Spoken like a California elite :P

No, I think if the election shifts to a pure FPTP popular vote election, that candidates don't really focus on voters outside of major cities. We already see what campaigns do when there is only a limited number of places they need to visit to win an election...candidates just visit those places (and then NY and LA to rub noses with rich people). I don't like this model, because ideally, Presidental candidates should see value in visiting as many places as possible.

Changing to the popular vote would shift that model to different places...but it probably means candidates don't spend any time away from the coasts.

That's the angle I'm coming from. I want campaigns to be able to represent the entire country, and while they don't do it under the winner-take-all of the electoral college, I think that will be reduced on a simple FPTP popular vote.

You realize that clinton won the popular vote by 2% points right while carrying NY and california by heavy margins.

Saying you can just win NY and california and ignore everything else just does not square with the reality of population distribution in the US.
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi
only 5 slots left in Bad Idea Mafia!
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi

TwoInAMillion
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: July 22, 2017
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17393  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:26 pm

In post 17373, shaft.ed wrote:wasnt the original electoral college even less democratic than what we have now?

This country is basically founded on making sure "those people" don't have any say
and its for their own good obv


Well we are a republic and not a democracy.

Thestatusquo
Shea
 
User avatar
Joined: July 28, 2006
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #17394  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:52 pm

In post 17394, TwoInAMillion wrote:
In post 17373, shaft.ed wrote:wasnt the original electoral college even less democratic than what we have now?

This country is basically founded on making sure "those people" don't have any say
and its for their own good obv


Well we are a republic and not a democracy.

Right but shaft.eds point is that the system used to be designed specifically to avoid letting the unwashed masses decide anything.

We didn't have direct election of senators until 1913, for instance.
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi
only 5 slots left in Bad Idea Mafia!
SleepyKrew: The dankest memer east or west of the Mississippi

Flubbernugget
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: June 26, 2014
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17395  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:58 pm

In post 17383, Thestatusquo wrote:
In post 17382, Flubbernugget wrote:On a less cynical note, let's say that a liberal presidential candidate pushes a massive pro-green campaign that involves EU-esque gas taxes. They only campaign in densely populated areas. That's great for the environment, but could absolutely destroy a lot of rural areas where public transportation may not be feasible. I don't think saying "well they're not the majority" is a fair assessment there.

Gas is relatively underpriced economically speaking.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to fix that issue. I'm saying it's unreasonable to do so recklessly to a large number of people on the basis of them not being the majority.

I'm well aware that the senate/house dynamic is based on this issue. I've never understood the sentiment that any other system that may reflect this is unfair, however.

TwoInAMillion
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: July 22, 2017
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17396  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:29 pm

In post 17395, Thestatusquo wrote:
In post 17394, TwoInAMillion wrote:
In post 17373, shaft.ed wrote:wasnt the original electoral college even less democratic than what we have now?

This country is basically founded on making sure "those people" don't have any say
and its for their own good obv


Well we are a republic and not a democracy.

Right but shaft.eds point is that the system used to be designed specifically to avoid letting the unwashed masses decide anything.

We didn't have direct election of senators until 1913, for instance.



Yes the founding fathers were wary of both of too much government influence and too much citizen influence.

T-Bone
A Cut Above
 
User avatar
Joined: February 18, 2011
Location: Shrug City
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17397  (ISO)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:37 pm

No, the founding fathers were rich white men who felt that the government would best function if only rich white men could make decisions.
Trying the Twitch thing out, help me get to 50!

"Playing in a Newbie game doesn't count" ~ PenguinPower, Feb 2019

TwoInAMillion
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: July 22, 2017
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17398  (ISO)  » Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:59 am

In post 17398, T-Bone wrote:No, the founding fathers were rich white men who felt that the government would best function if only rich white men could make decisions.


This is true, but they still built the most stable modern government in the world and were wise enough to know that the government system would need to change as times changed.

Panzerjager
Hell in a Cell
 
User avatar
Joined: January 05, 2007
Location: somewhere better than you =*
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17399  (ISO)  » Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:48 am

Most stable according to who?

There are 20 countries lower than us in the fragile states index.
Sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich.

GTKAS

PreviousNext
[ + ]

Return to General Discussion