Print

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

[Gentlefish]

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.

A two-house system like that makes sense. A state should have equal representation on par with other states (The house of lords), while each state should also have representation based on population (The house of commons). Similar to the parliament system in Britain.

However, a two-party system is bull. I hope more states follow Maine's lead.

[MrRoboto75]

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

In the grand scheme of things, its unavoidable.  Unless every state was exactly the same, someone would be more favored over another.

[Rolan7]

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.

Yeah.  This has come a bit already, but can't really be overstated.  It's First Past the Post which is really driving the wedge, here.  Making a false binary into a horrible pragmatic binary, conflating dozens of issues.  It'll always be us-vs-them until we get rid of it.

The CGP Grey video got mentioned but I don't think it was linked.  It does a good job of explaining and illustrating the immense problem, with humor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Though he also made a rather amusing 20-second video about the EC, heh:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcZTTB10_Vo

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.

I *want* to agree, but I just went over Trump's "contract" with us Americans.  His list of things he's actually definitely planning on doing, not just promises he made during the campaign (which we obviously can't trust).
It's still terrifying.
And then there's Mike Pence.

Though to be fair to Mike Pence, here's the end of his comment on diverting HIV-prevention money:

“Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.”

So... technically... he's talking about "consensual" reeducation camps.
Though obviously, in reality, kids are basically always coerced into these... places, by their parents.
Gotta give the devil his due, though.  *spit*

[smjjames]

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.

Yeah, I think you're right. Even my mom says that if they decide to move elsewhere or something, they would, and I might too, or if California decided to secede. Just need to calm down, let reason take hold, and see what the heck Trump is actually going to do.

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.

A two-house system like that makes sense. A state should have equal representation on par with other states (The house of lords), while each state should also have representation based on population (The house of commons). Similar to the parliament system in Britain.

However, a two-party system is bull. I hope more states follow Maine's lead.

We wouldn't be calling it the house of lords and house of commons though. But it's not the two house legislature that's the problem, it's the two party system.

And yeah, hopefully more states take Maine's lead, someone has to take the brave first step. If Maine's experiment goes well, California might be the next to take it up, we already have a 'top two' system which isn't a huge difference and several California cities already implement some form of ranked voting.

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

In the grand scheme of things, its unavoidable.  Unless every state was exactly the same, someone would be more favored over another.

True, but what we're trying to figure out here is how to make it more fair.

[Kot]

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 popular 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.

You're not changing anything, it's not because EC is wrong and PV is right, it's because the way States are. You don't have one huge big-ass country, what you have is basically a bunch of small countries with one big bad government over them. I assure you that the 3 votes states like Vermont or mentioned Wyoming have are having much more impact on the outcome than whatever their tiny population is now. The candidates would just focus much more on the most populous states and the fight would be even fiercer in those, as you don't only need to sway them to your side, you need to get as much as you can from them. 9 most populous states (with TX, CA, FL and NY holding 33,2% of population already) would already get over 50% of votes. Sure, not everyone there would vote for one candidate, but still most influence being spent on the main 4 and few other states to fill up to that 50%.
System is not perfect and could be improved (kick out the actual electors, just make the popular vote decide the outcome in the state surely), but I don't think that popular vote is going to fix your problems. You're not a singular country. You're a fucking federation. Popular vote sucks for federations. Look at Russia.

(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)

Stop promoting two-party because that's your cancer, not EC.

In the grand scheme of things, its unavoidable.  Unless every state was exactly the same, someone would be more favored over another.

With EC, the smaller states are less unfavoured as they have bigger impact than if you used PV.

[Max™]

(removed)

[Frumple]

Gotta give the devil his due, though.  *spit*

He's still supporting conversion therapy, rol. Known and consistent cause of th'torture and death of members of an american minority population. Means o'how you support that don't much matter. There ain't no due to give.

[smjjames]

You're a fucking federation. Popular vote sucks for federations. Look at Russia.

I object to the 'not a singular country' bit, well, we aren't in the nation-state sense anyway, and we DO call our Government the Federal Government.

(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)

Stop promoting two-party because that's your cancer, not EC.
[/url]

Maine is taking a brave first step away from the FPTP system, but it'll be some time before it reaches the Presidential level. Sometimes it's easier to do change slowly than all at once.

[Powder Miner]

I think it's a little bit silly to claim that 4chan won the election -- it's a good joke if we're on the Internet, but the millennial alt-righters weren't the ones who got Trump in in the end so much as the industrial sector workers and rural voters.

[smjjames]

autists

No need to call people names...... or call them stupid.... I know it wasn't at any of us, I'm just saying that there's no need to get into that mudhole and call Trump supporters names like that.

[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.

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

The reason reason the Senate and the electoral college exists is make sure the majority can't stomp the minority. It's a check and a balance.

Let me clarify in the 1930s most AMERCIANS didn't care for jews, heros like Ford wrote antisemitic material. Even Harvard had a limit admitted Jews. You know one of the reasons that not many anti-semantic laws were put in place? Senators!
The whole +2 thing doesn't always work, but over all; I'll keep it.

[Silverthrone]

Can I weaponise my autism? I'd like to make prince Harry a legitimate claimant of the Kingdom of Murica.

Aaahhhnold could be duke of California. Obama can get a pleasant lordship in Hawaii.

[Ghills]

Wonder if the Dems can find someone to tap into the uh, well, Trump had an army of autists volunteering for him.
...snip...

We're in a world where /pol/ did get Trump elected, nobody but them saw it coming, and now they're aware of how much power they can exert via in-jokes and weaponized autism.

It's not autism (a learning disability and processing disorder preventing the normal reading of social signals among other things). It's sociopathy (persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse) and narcissism ( exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others' feelings).

These things are not like each other at all, and I and everyone on the autistic spectrum would really appreciate if if people stopped conflating the 2.

There are a lot of narcissists and sociopaths who are supremely adept at reading social signals. In fact, most. Being able to manipulate people without remorse is one of the factors in those diagnoses because it's so common.  When you view people like tools, you learn to use them like tools.  This is not even in the same ballpark as not being able to recognize what others are trying to convey and not being able to convey your own responses.

[Frumple]

I think it's a little bit silly to claim that 4chan won the election -- it's a good joke if we're on the Internet, but the millennial alt-righters weren't the ones who got Trump in in the end so much as the industrial sector workers and rural voters.

I'unno about that. Those industrial sector workers and rural voters quite possibly wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for the alt-right's media output, if maybe not 4chan specifically. Though it does ultimately fall on those voters, yeah. Just not entirely.

[TheBiggerFish]

autists

Wonder if the Dems can find someone to tap into the uh, well, Trump had an army of autists volunteering for him.
...snip...

We're in a world where /pol/ did get Trump elected, nobody but them saw it coming, and now they're aware of how much power they can exert via in-jokes and weaponized autism.

It's not autism (a learning disability and processing disorder preventing the normal reading of social signals among other things). It's sociopathy (persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse) and narcissism ( exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others' feelings).

These things are not like each other at all, and I and everyone on the autistic spectrum would really appreciate if if people stopped conflating the 2.

There are a lot of narcissists and sociopaths who are supremely adept at reading social signals. In fact, most. Being able to manipulate people without remorse is one of the factors in those diagnoses because it's so common.  When you view people like tools, you learn to use them like tools.  This is not even in the same ballpark as not being able to recognize what others are trying to convey and not being able to convey your own responses.

Exactly.