Print

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

[Neonivek]

I am saying, that these states would dominate, and take any real voting power away from the other states.

Kansas? A measely population like that!? Fuck them, their opinion does not matter.

Man and you know... Kansas was the freeken lynch pin in this election!

But here is the thing. The "Four most populated states" were already shown to not dominate the entire election.

But how many swing states are there? Ohh right 11... One of which is Florida

Who isn't a Swing State? Right Kansas.

[Antioch]

I am saying, that these states would dominate, and take any real voting power away from the other states.

Kansas? A measely population like that!? Fuck them, their opinion does not matter.

(It would take a coalition of basically every other state to overpower any kind of platform alliance between Ca and Ny, for instance.)

No it wouldn't we already said that they would only have an 11% and 8% democratic advantage in the first place.

[wierd]

But, wasnt that the argument!?  That the small states now are the tyrants?

Get your stories straight kids.

Neon-- Hooray hyperbole!


No-- it does exactly what I said it does. It removes the wolf's teeth. It gives the other states enough electors, that they CAN effectively ban together against the heavy hitters like CA and NYC, as evidenced by this very election.

[Neonivek]

And heck I am not opposed to, even under a Electoral College system...

To keep voting ratios the same, but to eliminate the "You get the entire state" aspect.

[Antioch]

But, wasnt that the argument!?  That the small states now are the tyrants?

Get your stories straight kids.

Neon-- Hooray hyperbole!

Nothing like that was said, it was said repeatedly that the power was moved to swing states.

[wierd]

Posted by: Antioch
« on: Today at 07:59:27 am » Insert Quote

from: wierd on Today at 07:57:28 am
But, wasnt that the argument!?  That the small states now are the tyrants?

Get your stories straight kids.

Neon-- Hooray hyperbole!

Nothing like that was said, it was said repeatedly that the power was moved to swing states.

The HELL you say!!

Posted by: Antioch
« on: Today at 07:19:53 am » Insert Quote

Quote from: UXLZ on Today at 07:13:49 am

Quote from: wierd on Today at 06:55:17 am

Yes, the electoral college is "unfair", in that it denies the majority the power of being tyrants.

Aaaand gives it to the minority instead. The article you gave me to look at literally talked about the Swing States being the only ones that really mattered in a presidential election... Just like you say that

the only people who complain about it every 4 years, are the losers.

the only people who want it to stay are the ones who benefit or are afraid of the own alternative. To use your own analogy, instead of a big wolf eating a little sheep it's a little wolf eating a big sheep. Still a wolf eating a sheep either way around... You just like the little wolf, so it seems perfectly fine to you.
The part that's actually the fundamentally flawed and broken part of the electoral system isn't necessarily the EC itself though, it's the winner-take-all first-past-the-post.

This.

claiming the system protects the "sheep" is just plain untrue when the sheep (loser) gets literally zero representation under the system.

And its not even the democrats that are the worst off now, its the third parties that just get zero representation, why vote for someone when it does not translate in any way to representation?

[miljan]

Old video but funny as hell
300: Making America Great Again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7I92r9GqUw

[DemonOfWrath]

In a straight up popular vote election I don't think it's correct to go straight for the "bigger states will get all the attention". It'll more likely go to "states where I can swing the most voters for the least effort will get all the attention". If it turns out to be harder to swing voters in the large states compared to other places those will get the attention (and that may be the case, it's probably going to be harder for a Democrat to get Republican voters to flip in an area where it's already 60% D).

The end-all is whichever areas give the best results towards winning from money/time spent in them will get the most attention. And it isn't even like the small states benefit in the electoral college system. It's the states which are closest to 50/50. For instance Florida, which is one of the biggest states population-wise (correct? I'm not American so I don't 100% know). Most of the tiny states (population-wise) don't matter already because they swing heavily one way.

[wierd]

THey matter, because 4 of them equal florida.

Without the EC, all of them would equal less than 1/3 of florida.

[Neonivek]

THey matter, because 4 of them equal florida.

Without the EC, all of them would equal less than 1/3 of florida.

Except Florida had such a tight race that Florida actually barely would have mattered...

In fact it might be that even Kansas had more of a impact under such a system.

Remember we are eliminating the "Whoever wins a state gets ALL the votes" aspect.

So it is the NET votes that matter.

[Kot]

Another proof that Trump is actually God Emperor of Mankind in disguise.

[Antioch]

THey matter, because 4 of them equal florida.

Without the EC, all of them would equal less than 1/3 of florida.

Ok, I don't think it has become entirely clear from this discussion is that states powers are distributed not entirely by population count, it is the first past the post system that is used while doing it.

[wierd]

THey matter, because 4 of them equal florida.

Without the EC, all of them would equal less than 1/3 of florida.

Except Florida had such a tight race that Florida actually barely would have mattered...

In fact it might be that even Kansas had more of a impact under such a system.

Remember we are eliminating the "Whoever wins a state gets ALL the votes" aspect.

So it is the NET votes that matter.

That might make an improvement, but remember that THIS election was anomalous.

Better to look at other past election results. Results far more typical there. What you will find, by the numbers, is that democrats far out number republicans in the country.  What they dont do, is outnumber the number of states where that is reversed.

In a popular election, the democrat would almost always win.  CHeck historic data. You will see.

[DemonOfWrath]

But they don't. The argument is the EC makes them matter more so their voices are paid attention to.

Florida is worth 29 votes.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas and Oklahoma together are worth 29 votes.

I don't know about you but I never heard shit about the latter group of states in any US presidential election I remember (for emphasis, I had to look up what the names of those states were, I can remember the names and rough locations of the swing states). Nobody campaigns in those states because they're guaranteed to go Republican every time, so campaigning there is pointless (you only campaign in a state if you think it'll flip your way, or you're worried about it flipping the other way).

In fact in a popular vote situation the latter 7 would matter more, because Florida will go roughly 50/50 so basically cancel it's large population out, whereas those will go heavily Republican (at the moment) and give a large surplus. I'm actually going to go and look at what the margin would be.

[wierd]

THey matter, because 4 of them equal florida.

Without the EC, all of them would equal less than 1/3 of florida.

Ok, I don't think it has become entirely clear from this discussion is that states powers are distributed not entirely by population count, it is the first past the post system that is used while doing it.

Oh, I am quite fine with ditching FPtP--

FPtP is NOT the EC.