I heard somebody say once that under the perfect conditions, you could win the presidency with less than 18% of the popular vote. Maybe there is no such thing as a perfect system, but that seems crazy
Its to keep laymans from electing an idiot. Back when the system was created the disparity of people who were educated vs not was quite different. So only a select people actually had a vote. It was suppose to be correlated to the popular vote but no laws dictate it has to be.
2
deleted
· 7 years ago
I think for 8 years we should disband the electoral college and see if we honestly need it
There are other options too, it's not like if you abolish the electoral vote, all of a sudden you're stuck with California and NY pulling all the strings. It's a very unusual system you have, with some pretty obvious pitfalls
I think we should kill the electoral college, and replace it with the condition that in order to vote, you have to pass a test on the candidates policies and how they might impact the area(this should happen on all levels).
I think we should keep the electoral college seeing that it gives states like mine (utah) actual say in the voting process. Not only is it supposed to prevent large states from dominating but it is also suppose to take into consideration the areas. Californians are more likely to agree on the same things whereas utahns are more likely to think differently from them. So with the electoral college you are bringing into account all the tiny states and there points of view. To get rid of that would be almost getting rid of the views of all small states the rural section of country would end up losing alot of power and we would lose what makes this country great which is diversity.
I never said they do im saying in order for smaller rural communities to get their opinions through they should have an electoral college. Cities tend to have more people than out in the country.
For a state with a small population to have the same weight as one with a much larger population, that is making the opinions of the smaller population count more.
no one is giving the rural populations a more important vote but it gives diversity like I said the majority isnt always right and parties are some what a problem but big cities and small farms do need weighted votes otherwise only one point of view is dominating the polling areas. In fact I agree with more electoral college votes being split by populations in states that way if california has a vote of 60 to 40 like this election one person would not recieve all 55 votes.
big cities and small farms do need weighted votes
Why? Why urban vs rural? Why not, say, people who finished high school vs those that didn't? Or people who work in the private sector vs those in public service? Why not weigh the college by the relative economic strength of the states or some other metric, average citizen IQ or something? Population density seems a pretty arbitrary - and unfair - factor to determine the weight of a vote, to me.
Please explain how it is not giving rural residents a stronger voice when their votes count about the same as many times that number in residential ones.
They have needs and rights too. They are outnumbered, and a direct democracy will not be able to meet rural needs or maintain their rights. That isn't sustainable.
Legislation that's good for cities may not be good for farmers, hunters, or anyone else that doesn't live in a city. Giving legislative/judicial/executive powers to the majority will force everyone else to play by rules that may hinder or even harm them while simultaneously ignoring any help or services that they need.
What aren't you getting? Ignoring people who aren't part of the majority will only lead to them taking violent recourse or, more likely, they'll join the majority and put more strain in cities while also depriving the nation of their skill sets and experiences. Either way the Union is weaker, less diverse, and less adaptable. It isn't sustainable.
First of all, they aren't being ignored. If they were, it'd be by ignoring the majority. It shouldn't have anything to do with urban vs rural. It should just be opinion vs opinion.
it should still be majority rule though, California wouldn't always dominate, there have been times where republicans would have won if they went by popular vote. Hell, it happened back in 2008
thats like saying "little billy lost the game by 3 points even though he had equal opportunity, but i, the minority, like him better so he deserves to still win, and the actual winner gets the participation trophy"
The problem is that the words you put in your own mouth are stupid. Even if it is a 2% difference, the point of democratic political systems is to give each person an equal say in the future of their country, and then provide the government that has been requested by the nation as a whole, whether there is one less conservative seat at the top or 15 fewer liberal ones. Having the 49% have a greater impact on the entire country than the 51%, as you put your argument, goes against the entire reasoning for democracy.
I don't want anything to do with a pure democracy. Societies need rule of law above all else.
America never was a democracy, this is a republic where rule of law reigns.
deleted
· 7 years ago
What makes you think there's a conflict between democracy and the ruling of law?
I think people should start thinking about local elections around them more than just the presidential election. How you get real change is by starting with your community and getting a common thought out and talked out agenda/idea.
I'm not 100% how replies work here yet; I'm new.... but this is aimed for Famousone in particular. By supporting the electoral college, you are supporting that exact framework. There are entire counties that voted overwhelmingly for one candidate, some that were counted by tens of votes... and yet that is what decided the election and technically made millions of votes in the rest of the state worthless. This keeps happening in Florida if you really want an example. 40,000 people deciding an election for the rest of the nation because of how the state swings is EXTREMELY problematic. That's not true democracy, nor a true republic now that Texas, NC and Florida have been gerrymandered to the point it would take a 1,000 point dot to dot map to actually draw some of the urban districts.
Make no mistake funkmaster, people like democracy, but don't try to sell Mob Rule as a legitimate form for governance. Sure, it'll win you a battle once or twice, but when the popular opinion is no longer your own, beware.
Her program consists mainly in strict immigration laws and leaving the european union and the eurozone. She wants to regulate the country's economy via protectionism (import taxes for instance). She's considered as far right because of her program but her score at the presidential election shows that her opinion is getting mainstream so she may not be considered as an extreme for long.
deleted
· 7 years ago
I agree that her immigration policies are harsh but even some of us in the commie community hate the liberal agenda the eu promotes and its anti communist narrative
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
Guest has left out some quite important points that clearly define the Front National as extreme right. Not only do they want to "regulate" immigration (by reducing it in general to very low figures) but also they are planning a lot of tightening up the conditions foreigners live under in France. Easier evictions for petty crimes, less voting rights, less political codetermination for example. Also clear discriminations of muslims are planned (keep in mind France has the highest long-time populations of muslims in central europe). This is part of the "French First" movement which probably is the major cornerstone of the FN. Jobs, social security, housing, any kind of local or national resource shall be beneficial for french people first, and only if anything is left over, well, let's see. The "social" question they are raising is actually and essentially also part of this nationalism. 2B ctnd.
▼
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
cntd. from ^: They want to take away from some (foreigners) to give to others (french) and disguise this nationalism/chauvinism as a social matter. It is really hard to ignore the implication of a national socialism. Also they are planning much stricter (penal) laws, including death penalty, classic right agenda. The fact that so many non-right voters chose the FN is partly caused by the clever tactic not to mention anything too right directly (so the "normal citizens" were not too shocked) but imply enough for the right wing to understand. The surprisingly low numbers for her in the election were partly because she kind of lost her cool in the debate with Macron. Too many voters saw the wolf in the sheep's clothing I guess.
▼Reply
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
Trump won because America is not a democracy it's a republic
Anyone who claims the electoral college is broken and needs to be replaced don't understand that it has performed perfectly this previous election season. If it was replaced with majority rules, places like Chicago, New York, and California would hold more precedence than even other parts of their home state. Democracy is a consensus of a large amount of people, that does not guarentee the ones who cast their vote differently than the majority are in agreement. The Electoral college goes through all the counties where the population live, and take into account their decision, rather than letting large cities decide what goes. The proposed "mob rule" suggested does not aid democratic ideals, it puts power into the largest group and encourages it to be used against the smaller communities.
There is no reason why some bumbfuck in Wyoming should have 18x the voting power of someone in California about issues that will affect California 10 fold more than it would Wyoming. Yes, tyranny of the majority is always an issue, but tyranny of the minority is JUST as dangerous. How the fuck do you think Germany got Hitler? Hitler didn't win the majority AT ALL.
So a citizen of the United States vote is worth less than someone's in California because you say so? Not even California, just San Fran, Los Angeles, and the rest of the cityscape. Chicago's a hellhole in both politics and economy, and I sure as hell don't want them to decide what's best for Wyoming.
a citizen of cali is a us citizen you dumbfuck. they're people, how the hell are their votes worth more than yours? they get the same number of votes as you; one
There are more Californians then Oregonians, so putting national issues to majority vote will skew things towards what California thinks is right and wrong, and that may not work for Texas, Oregon, or anyone else.
your logic makes no sense. why should a californian's vote mean less than someones in wyoming?
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
A "national issue" by definition would concern all the nation. So what's wrong with the majority of a nations citizen to decide on those national issues? What decision on a national issue would work for Californians but not for Texans? The US states have more authority on their local issues than the European states.
All states should have a measure of power that isn't outweighed by others simply because of number. Californians might want higher taxes, but Texans could probably want lower taxes. The States should only hold autonomy and power over the citizens that reside in that state. The popular vote allows States with higher population to dictate what happens in local governments that are not within their jurisdiction.
Also Nyan, a Californian Citizen of the USA is not worth more or worth less than a Citizen of Oregon. There are simply way more Californian folks than there are other citizens in most states.
taxes are voted based on state. on nation-wide voting opportunities, states should be forgotten and just base the winner off of what the majority of the people want.
So fuck the minority and subjugate them to the majority? Communism wanted it to be that way, and no good thing has ever come of communism. It's rather despotic to wish for a system that favors your personal outlook, and incredibly short-sighted as well. The "Majority" you espouse live in three states. New York, Illinois, and California. If majority rules was the way the election was decided, no one would bother campaigning anywhere else. It doesn't create a balance of power, it just makes those states the only one worth having a vote.
Popular vote is communism, who knew? Anyway, when it comes to electorial college at least we know the answer to this cui bono question.
Trump got millions of votes less, The "demos" in democracy is people, not acreage.
Popular Vote is mob rule, and mob rule is not something I would want to live under. Communism also happens to be something I would not want to be under either. I'm making that comparison, not Popular Vote=Communism. Popular Vote is the purest form of democracy, but still a bad form of governance.
2
deleted
· 7 years ago
I get it, the right is afraid of democracy as they fear that sharing means to loose. They fear that everyone is as selfish as they are. That's why Republicans still don't protest against that orange mongrel as long as there's the slightest chance they get some of their agenda done.
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
Salty
2
deleted
· 7 years ago
That's not even two cents worth. I get it, you like it the way it is because that's the only way the beetroot farmers voices can supersede those of 21st century people. And as most people, you believe what serves you best makes most sense. And by repeating the argument that more square miles is more important than more votes, it doesn't really get better.
I love living in the EU by the way. We have a great system and most people totally like it as well.
Most people. Brexit happened, and the EU has a gross overreach of power over it's member states. As Drazil pointed out, Lawmakers from brussels, that were NOT democratically voted in masse dictate what laws are carried out in it's member states, regardless of their input. You aren't necessarily ruled by your democratic voting, you are ruled by someone on high telling you what to do.
It's not about mileage, it's about regional concerns, domestic peace, and fair representation.
And you know what? Sometimes the farmers are right. And sometimes they just want to address concerns that would never be considered by city folk due to simple ignorance or apathy.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin
It's a good point, but the difference between Trump and Clinton wasn't that extreme to the point where he only had 22%. They both had over 60 million votes cast for them, and the population difference was around 2-3%. Not the extreme scenario presented where only 22% of the country could elect the next president. It was pretty damn close all things considered.
My point is, is a system that's capable of electing a president on only 22% of the vote the best system? My sense of fairness says no - I like living in a place where one citizen = one vote, and it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, what your job is, or where you're from. And intellectually, just from a mathematical perspective, the potential for that much deviation from the will of the people seems.. suboptimal. Surely there's a better way.
Well, it's sort of like why capitalism won out in the cold war. It was the best of the worst. Eventually all systems get replaced with better ones, assuming they last long enough to recieve upgrades. There is no perfect system, but there is one that is least likely to have power to screw you over. So far we haven't had an outcome like the one presented in the video. It's a legitmate concern, and if it happens, I definitely would stand on the other side of the fence.
I was referencing the electoral college when talking about how much a vote is worth. Because it's base senators + 1 for each house representative, states with lower populations have their representation skewed to benefit them more. If you still want to keep the electoral college, get rid of the 2 base senators and it'll become more balanced.
If we lose the base 2 votes, a lot of states lose their worth in the political sphere. No one whats to be a politician in a state that has no value to the rest of the country. And if no one wants to represent you and your concerns to the Federal Government, why be there? Plus, California has a Bloated amount of representatives. So much so that some of its votes are distributed to other states. And if the federal government tells all these smaller states that they have one vote, why should they be part of a Union that doesn't care what they say. And if they have to band together to make their vote worth something, why not just split and create their own governing state where they will have someone who cares about them?
Here's something to have a look at, 3 million vote disreprecency or not, If Clinton had been voted in on the results of the 2016 election, a LOT more people would be incredibly displeased, not politicians, congressmen, senators, your normal everyday citizen of the US would be unhappy.
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
edit: Have a good long look at the counties that voted for Clinton VS Trump.
We should get rid of the "need 270 votes" or however amount is needed to win condition. The electoral victory should be a pure plurality (the greatest population, not necessarily 50%+1). Because 270 votes is a majority, it naturally forces everyone to gather in two parties because that has the greatest chance of victory. If a plurality is used then there's much less incentive to gather in two parties; the small people have a better chance of victory because the mentality will not be "I want to vote for little Timmy but Cunty Cliton and Dickpickle Dump are the big names so I have to go to them if I want my vote to matter". With a majority, voting for anyone besides the two (or three) biggest names means you've just tossed your vote which is incidentally why I didn't vote. Also because I hate all the candidates.
Why? Why urban vs rural? Why not, say, people who finished high school vs those that didn't? Or people who work in the private sector vs those in public service? Why not weigh the college by the relative economic strength of the states or some other metric, average citizen IQ or something? Population density seems a pretty arbitrary - and unfair - factor to determine the weight of a vote, to me.
America never was a democracy, this is a republic where rule of law reigns.
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
Trump got millions of votes less, The "demos" in democracy is people, not acreage.
I love living in the EU by the way. We have a great system and most people totally like it as well.
And you know what? Sometimes the farmers are right. And sometimes they just want to address concerns that would never be considered by city folk due to simple ignorance or apathy.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/unequal-distribution-electoral-college-votes-presidential-election-popular-vote-2016-5
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
edit: Have a good long look at the counties that voted for Clinton VS Trump.