Print

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

[hector13]

@ More States

honestly, i have no idea. all i can think of is 'oh god if the number isn't even, the flag'll look horrible.'

Probably not good for 51 or 53.

The former is only divisible by 3 and 17 and the latter's prime.

I guess it means you get to have a new flag competition like New Zealand did recently...

[penguinofhonor]

snip

Would you support giving African Americans more voting power as a solution to the white majority historically exploiting them?

[ChairmanPoo]

Or do like the EU and stop adding or removing stars

[wierd]

snip

Would you support giving African Americans more voting power as a solution to the white majority historically exploiting them?

AA already does that, economically and academically.

[Criptfeind]

When I hear complaints about "Why should your vote count 3x what mine does, despite there being so few of you in comparison to my demographic!?", what I hear is "Why does my vote to eat you count 1/3 what your vote to not be eaten does!? There are 3X as many of us wolves! Dont our votes count!?"

I mean, crouch it in whatever terms to try to preemptively cast values on it. "People from big states are big scary predators and small states are innocent fluffy prey" But in the end of the day all this analogy really seems to be is you saying that yes, in fact, the wolves votes don't count. After all, in this black and white model what you're really doing is valuing the 1/4th as higher then the 3/4ths. Since if the wolves don't eat, they'll die just as assuredly as a sheep who is eaten.

[Helgoland]

Or do like the EU and stop adding or removing stars

The EU never added or removed stars - it's always been twelve. They were never meant to symbolize twelve countries anyway.

Also, no comments on the title change? I am disappoint.

[wierd]

Any time in history where there has been a strong ideological divide, with a massive supermajority, there has been a permanent underclass of the disenfranchised.

THAT is what "My vote should be equal to your vote, (just ignore that I am part of the overclass, and you are part of the minority! That isnt important!)" means.

That is why I am against it.

Compare-- White majority, vs black minority.  How well did that turn out after the emancipation proclamation, until the 60s, with AA?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Removing the EC wouldn't extend voting rights to people in the territories, that's a different legal question.

[wierd]

If anything, without the EC, the people in those territories would only end up being token participants.

[redwallzyl]

i fail to see how that is the case.

[WealthyRadish]

There's the additional point that the electoral college failed to fulfill its only purpose, of denying the presidency from an unqualified candidate. Of course, that all hinges on what "unqualified" means, which can mean whatever you want it to, but it can't be denied that this is the closest it's come to fulfilling that role on those grounds.

Eventually people will care enough about the high proportion of wasted votes in our elections that one of the parties will need to adopt a reform position, or be replaced by one that will. Maybe this election will be traumatic enough for the Democrats that it'll stick past the next pendulum swing.

When I hear complaints about "Why should your vote count 3x what mine does, despite there being so few of you in comparison to my demographic!?", what I hear is "Why does my vote to eat you count 1/3 what your vote to not be eaten does!? There are 3X as many of us wolves! Dont our votes count!?"

The intention of this argument is good (protecting a minority from a hostile legislating majority) but weighting votes as a way of accomplishing that doesn't make any sense, and could be used to justify any obviously undemocratic arrangement. It's especially absurd when looking at the electoral college; it is true that the college was intended to give slightly more representation to low population states due to the inclusion of senators, but that's not why the "vote weighting" is so messed up right now. It's messed up because in the 1910s congress failed to pass new legislation expanding the number of seats in congress in proportion with population growth, and their dysfunction back then is what now leaves us with these ridiculous 700,000-1,000,000 population congressional districts compared to districts in 1910 with 63,000 each. You're not defending a grand plan on the part of wise old Jefferson to protect honest farmers from carpetbaggers, you're defending the product of a stupid and shortsighted congress over a hundred years ago that accidentally created this problem.

..

But really with all that said, I think the bigger issue with the EC in particular is the winner-take-all nature of the states. Nevermind getting 2/3 of a North Dakota vote, if you voted for a person who did not win your state, you got 0 votes. Politicians don't ignore California because their votes are worth less due to differences in delegate count and population, it's due to that vast body of wasted votes when the state flips 100% blue, both among the surplus democrats and all of the republicans.

20 unread posts hnnnnnnng

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You argument in favor of the EC doesn't make much sense, like all other arguments I've seen for the EC. The EC first of all only exists for Presidential elections, so this alleged low-pop state marginalization should already exist from all of the other, more relevant positions that are not subject to EC voting.

All people should have an equal vote for President in the same way all people have an equal vote for their state's Senators, because its a unitary position for that jurisdiction, in this case that jurisdiction being the entire nation.

The EC is clearly more marginalizing than removing it, since it encourages Presidential candidates to not care about minority politics in any state they aren't likely to get 50%+1 votes in, nor any majority politics above that certainty.

Having the state bodies vote for President simply makes no sense at all, since it isn't from the plurality of the states that the President gains their authority. Both the majority and minority populations of all areas are better represented in the Presidential elections without the EC.

[wierd]

Wrong. Ec votes are tied to number of senators. That includes representation in the legislature. Not just presidential elections.

Eg, the REASON why low pop state has more "vote power", is because they have a higher ratio of senators:population, which is WHY they have more ECV:population.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Every state has two senators, wierd.

And the number of representatives won't be changed by removal of the EC. Proportional assignment of representatives isn't something being fought against, although if your main concern is representation of rural areas your focus should be on elimination of gerrymandering (I recommend shortest-splitline districts).

There is no relationship between the EC and this. And removing the EC takes the Presidential election out of "the way states go" almost entirely, so clearly its the best solution for preventing flyover country.

[wierd]

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/allocation.html

You are only half right, but pretend the thing you are mad about is disconnected from the argument.

The ECV of a state is determined by the number of representatives in govt, be they senators or congressmen. That number is determined by population + a minimum rep number.

Your basis for argument is that the min rep number is disproportionate to the population of other, more populous states, and your proposed solution is to reduce the power of the weakest states, and that this is somehow fair and balanced, despite historical precedent.