Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

good old electoral college, the only reason it exists is because the government thought normal people couldn't handle elections

No, it exists because before the adoption of the Constitution the states were essentially independent entities, and less-populous states refused to ratify unless they could be promised that the big states wouldn't dominate the political process. Back then, you were a New Yorker (say) first and an American second if at all, and you certainly didn't trust the people in those other states to have your state's interests at heart.

That's the first time I've heard that as an explaination. And no, it was a compromise between the slaveholding southern states which had more slaves than non-slaves and the northern states. Plus it being a compromise between the larger states and the smaller states.

Which, uh, I have to say, looks pretty vindicated.

Is that supposed to be a jab at California? lol

[Maximum Spin]

And no, it was a compromise between the slaveholding southern states which had more slaves than non-slaves and the northern states. Plus it being a compromise between the larger states and the smaller states.

You say "no" but those are literally the same thing

[Dunamisdeos]

I don't know why it's hard to understand that rural states don't want to be dominated utterly by urban states.

I don't think it actually is hard to understand. I don't think there are many people who don't understand this.

I think that people pretend they don't get it because of the most recent election, and they think they are being clever instead of obnoxiously obtuse.

[scourge728]

Does Wisconsin count as a rural state, if so then I'm from one and I want that, as this election in particular proves the faults of such a system

[Maximum Spin]

Does Wisconsin count as a rural state, if so then I'm from one and I want that, as this election in particular proves the faults of such a system

This election in particular was the system working perfectly.

I'm from an urban, populous state and I can see this. :|

You don't have to like the results to realise that they are what the system was designed to produce, for a good reason.

[smjjames]

And no, it was a compromise between the slaveholding southern states which had more slaves than non-slaves and the northern states. Plus it being a compromise between the larger states and the smaller states.

You say "no" but those are literally the same thing

I kind of only read the second sentence, somehow.

Does Wisconsin count as a rural state, if so then I'm from one and I want that, as this election in particular proves the faults of such a system

This election in particular was the system working perfectly.

I'm from an urban, populous state and I can see this. :|

You don't have to like the results to realise that they are what the system was designed to produce, for a good reason.

He might be referring to the fact that the populous states have more EC votes than less populous states.

[Maximum Spin]

I kind of only read the second sentence, somehow.

Oh, haha, I just said "New Yorker" because that's my state, not because it was directly relevant to the compromise.

[Rolan7]

I don't know why it's hard to understand that rural states don't want to be dominated utterly by urban states.

I don't think it actually is hard to understand. I don't think there are many people who don't understand this.

I think that people pretend they don't get it because of the most recent election, and they think they are being clever instead of obnoxiously obtuse.

I wonder if it's as frustrating as living in an urban area of an east coast state and having the rural areas decide the governor, senators, and most of the representatives?  Such concentrated groups of people, mechanically disenfranchised, might get resentful.

But a person in North Dakota (760,000 people) shouldn't have to feel dominated either.  Agricultural states getting dominated by dense population centers didn't turn out well last time.  That's why I'm just fine with every North Dakotan literally getting 10X as much representation in the Senate.  The Senate is the equalizer of states.

What bothers me is that they get 2X as much influence over the electoral college.  People in less-populated states get mad because their individual states don't get much time, but that's ignoring how much they get courted as a bloc.  It also helps if the states have any chance of swinging, of course.

[redwallzyl]

I would like to point out the electoral college has noting to do with compensating for urban rural divides or anything like that. And state boundaries are generally terrible as they have little relation to modern realities. The EC needs scraped, it makes no sense and never worked in the first place for what it was designed to do. There is a really good reason none of the other 200 odd countries on the planet use our stupid system. don't pretend its good, its shit and in desperate need for reform.

[smjjames]

The urban/rural divide as we see it didn't exist in the 18th century anyway. Yes, there was a split or friction between urban centers and rural areas, there always has been, but it wasn't the sharp polarizing split that we see today.

[Yoink]

I'm not sure if I felt bad earlier, but I certainly do now.
Hard to pin down just why... I do have a little bit of a cold (thanks, sudden temperature change and workplace full of sick co-workers), but I think the amount of procrastination I just inconvenienced myself by doing, my vague, nagging desires for a change of scenery, the clothes I forgot to take out of the washing machine (shit, I'll do it tomorrow, honest) and the general bleakness of existence all have a hand in it as well.
I feel pretty bad. I wish I had a nice comfy reading spot to just curl up in...

[deathpunch578]

good old electoral college, the only reason it exists is because the government thought normal people couldn't handle elections

No, it exists because before the adoption of the Constitution the states were essentially independent entities, and less-populous states refused to ratify unless they could be promised that the big states wouldn't dominate the political process. Back then, you were a New Yorker (say) first and an American second if at all, and you certainly didn't trust the people in those other states to have your state's interests at heart.

I remember the college was made after normal people were able to vote, it was something about how the government and the rich thought they weren't educated enough to vote correctly.

but I could be wrong about that.

[Gentlefish]

The EC is based on the number of Senators plus Representatives in a state, so the citizen's vote simply tells then who to vote for, state-by-state.

TBH I wish voting was treated more like Jury duty. Not only is it a right, but a duty of the citizen to vote and there are penalties to not voting, even if it's just to cast a blank ballot.

[Teneb]

The EC is based on the number of Senators plus Representatives in a state, so the citizen's vote simply tells then who to vote for, state-by-state.

TBH I wish voting was treated more like Jury duty. Not only is it a right, but a duty of the citizen to vote and there are penalties to not voting, even if it's just to cast a blank ballot.

Also, y'know, the EC folks don't actually have to vote like their states did. They usually do, but nothing stopping them otherwise.

[deathpunch578]

The EC is based on the number of Senators plus Representatives in a state, so the citizen's vote simply tells then who to vote for, state-by-state.

I know that, I'm just talking about why it was made.

TBH I wish voting was treated more like Jury duty. Not only is it a right, but a duty of the citizen to vote and there are penalties to not voting, even if it's just to cast a blank ballot.

same, I also wish people would stop voting for memes