Print

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

[TempAcc]

Yea, if anything, the biggest evil in murica politics is the two party system. Politics isn't a fight of A against B, and reducing it to that just pisses people off constantly and fucks up representation completely. The electoral college at least makes some sense, the two party system kinda doest, IMO.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not retarded, the Electoral College is the bane of our Presidential elections. It causes shit like this where the popular vote does not decide, and it means that candidates overly focus on swing states. Dem voters in Wyoming and Republican voters in Washington both start mattering when the EC is out the door.

And now they overly focus on the most populous states. You're not changing anything, really. Get rid of Two Party first, if anything.

You can't "get rid" of the party system, it changes in response to actions. Like getting rid of the EC. Since it'd change two different shitty Presidents, I'd say that changes quite a lot.

EC votes are distributed in response to population. They already give focus to populous states. They give zero focus at all to states they think they can't break 50 with, which would change. Swing states, populous states, and "flyover country" would all be of more equal importance without the EC.

It's a relic, and correctly hated by most Americans who understand it. I have no problem with other measures, like expanding the voting changes we've gotten in Maine. But the EC needs to go. It warps everything around it.

[Starver]

Obama. In 4 years from now, people will want Obama back.

and we can't have him

But we could have her...

[smjjames]

Or maybe just give each state one point each, make them ALL equal, right?

[smjjames]

Obama. In 4 years from now, people will want Obama back.

and we can't have him

But we could have her...

Michelle Obama has said 'no way, no, I absolutely do not want to run for political office.' After what she has gone through the past eight years, I don't blame her.

Doesn't mean she won't still be an influential figure in politics for a long time. Many past first ladies were influential long after their husband left office.

[Frumple]

... that would be nearly disenfranchising voters in places like cali, smj. The states would be equal but the individual vote power per capita would be massively, freakishly disproportionate. EC already kinda' does that, but one state one vote would make that so much incredibly worse it's painful to even contemplate

[Vilanat]

Not only a nominee can lose despite having a popular vote because of the EC, he also has a chance to lose because of the remarkable, however slim, possibility of faithless electors.

Seriously U.S, get rid of this ridiculous system.

[smjjames]

... that would be nearly disenfranchising voters in places like cali, smj. The states would be equal but the individual vote power per capita would be massively, freakishly disproportionate. EC already kinda' does that, but one state one vote would make that so much incredibly worse it's painful to even contemplate

Yeah, good point actually. It was an off-the-wall thought. The other problem is that states with high numbers aren't very competitive. But once something becomes a stronghold, candidates of the other party hardly bother campaigning there. Which leads us right back to the problems of the EC.

[Spehss _]

Or maybe just give each state one point each, make them ALL equal, right?

That's pretty much the reasoning why each state gets two senators. And the house representative numbers are based on population in order to get a balance of power between equal representation and proportional representation in the legislative branch.

[MasterFancyPants]

Not only a nominee can lose despite having a popular vote because of the EC, he also has a chance to lose because of the remarkable, however slim, possibility of faithless electors.

Seriously U.S, get rid of this ridiculous system.

"can lose despite having a popular vote because of the EC"
That's the point prior to WWII most people didn't like Jews... That would have turned out well.
I do agree that electors should be required by law for who their state chooses.

[redwallzyl]

relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcZTTB10_Vo

[MrRoboto75]

Or maybe just give each state one point each, make them ALL equal, right?

That's pretty much the reasoning why each state gets two senators. And the house representative numbers are based on population in order to get a balance of power between equal representation and proportional representation in the legislative branch.

So

Two EC points for winning the majority vote in that state

The rest of the state's EC points go proportionately based on total percentage of the vote, round up in favor of the majority winner

(So if Trump won a 20 point state by 60%, he would get 2 points automatically, plus 60% of the 20 points.  Hillary would get the 40% left over)

[Rolan7]

4 years of Democratic filibustering in the Senate?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/scott-walker-donald-trump-filibuster/index.html Not unless they decide to remove the filibuster. Of course though, only problem with that is that the next time THEY are in the minority, they wouldn't be able to use it. A case of not thinking things through.

Yeah, considering how much they used it to block positive change under Obama, I am 200% mad at Scott Walker now.  What a two-faced... human being... worthy of respect as a fellow life form...  *deep breaths*

[Wolfhunter107]

Now I've had a day or so to think about it, I think that we're starting to get a bit ridiculous with the panicking here (I'm at fault here, too). Probably best to calm down a bit, and see what Trump actually does next.

[smjjames]

Not only a nominee can lose despite having a popular vote because of the EC, he also has a chance to lose because of the remarkable, however slim, possibility of faithless electors.

Seriously U.S, get rid of this ridiculous system.

"can lose despite having a popular vote because of the EC"
That's the point prior to WWII most people didn't like Jews... That would have turned out well.
I do agree that electors should be required by law for who their state chooses.

Huh? What does WWII have to do with the EC and why are you Godwinning or pseudo-Godwinning here?

Or maybe just give each state one point each, make them ALL equal, right?

That's pretty much the reasoning why each state gets two senators. And the house representative numbers are based on population in order to get a balance of power between equal representation and proportional representation in the legislative branch.

So

Two EC points for winning the majority vote in that state

The rest of the state's EC points go proportionately based on total percentage of the vote, round up in favor of the majority winner

(So if Trump won a 20 point state by 60%, he would get 2 points automatically, plus 60% of the 20 points.  Hillary would get the 40% left over)

Poportional might be a good idea. Though I could see it leading to politicians favoring states with larger numbers (CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, any state with 10 or more ECV) and leaving states which they are confident they'll get 50% or more in. Which...... brings us right back to square one on the whole problem we're trying to solve