Started By
Message
re: The main reason I love Trump more today than a few weeks ago
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:50 am to cas4t
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:50 am to cas4t
quote:
Plus, something like 25 states or so have it written into state law that the electors are bound to the popular vote. Many of these are states with hella rural areas. I think Alabama is in there actuall
The popular vote in that state. Those laws exist to prevent faithless electors (of which there were several this year and more left HRC than left Trump). Every state SHOULD have laws that prevent electors from going off the rails and not voting according to however that state allocates their EC votes.
1
Posted on 2/23/17 at 11:38 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
The popular vote in that state.
I understand this- it's state law.
quote:
Every state SHOULD have laws that prevent electors from going off the rails and not voting according to however that state allocates their EC votes.
I agree. For reasons like what you listed. Unfortunately, the penalty in most states is $1,000 if you go against your state's pick. Let's say you're in a swing state and it's crunch time- is that really harsh enough to prevent you from being bought?
I'm not taking into consideration a state like Mississippi; their popular vote is always going to heavily lean to the right.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 11:47 am to cas4t
quote:
I agree. For reasons like what you listed. Unfortunately, the penalty in most states is $1,000 if you go against your state's pick. Let's say you're in a swing state and it's crunch time- is that really harsh enough to prevent you from being bought?
Nope, it isn't. Should be a felony with at least 10 years real (as in locked up, no parole) time.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 1:08 pm to JustGetItRight
I think you and I agree on most of this, with a few differences here and there. I'd like to see President Trump put his money where his mouth is (or was, in 2012), and at the very least clean up the EC.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 2:30 pm to cas4t
quote:
You're either missing the point entirely or just being obtuse. I don't know how else to put it. The vast majority of the rural area states electors have to vote in conjunction with the popular vote. Those states are republican states and therefore the EC is always going to follow the popular vote anyways.
Legitimately not. I think part of my confusion is that when I'm reading what you're saying, I am conflating "popular vote" in each state to "popular vote" for the country. I'll explain my confusion.
But I'll restate what I'm getting at because it just feels like we aren't communicating. The electoral college is designed in part to give slightly disproportionate value to lower population states. One way to accomplish this is to make the state a winner take all. Some states don't do this, like Nebraska and Maine, but it dilutes the purpose of the Electoral College. If the votes were split proportionally and not assigned completely to the popular vote of the state, then it would essentially fall in line with the popular vote of country. If you layer the proportional representative model at the state level, you're diluting the weight of proportional representation.
Why? Because all those things that say, "a vote in Wyoming is worth THREE TIMES what it's worth in California"... is a complete misrepresentation of the system. It's only worth that much IF the following conditions are met.
1) The population of eligible voters as a percentage of the the overall population in the previous census, is identical in each state.
2) Everyone only votes.
3) Everyone only votes for only one of two candidates.
4) Every state uses a winner take all format.
But not understanding these statements and how to contextualize that "3 times" number is dangerous. It makes you think that Californians forever and always have the least representation in the Electoral College. Look at the overwhelming votes for Hillary. 8,753,788 votes accounted for 55 Electoral College Votes! That's 159,159.9 Californians finding their way to the Ballot Box per vote for their candidate. Only 174,419 people in all of Wyoming voted for Trump, but they got 3 votes, at 58,139.7 to the Ballot Box. That's 2.737 to 1!!! Californians should be outraged, right? They have the biggest population, a huge margin for Hillary. But guess what. Because of the faithless electors in Washington, a vote for Hilldog in the Evergreen State was actually 36% less impactful than a vote in California. It would have been even less impactful if the votes went to Trump, instead of Colin Powell and Spotted Eagle. In Maine, where the vote went to the opponent netting out the impact... all 357,734 votes for Hillary only accounted for two votes. A vote in California, in their winner take all system, accounts for 12% more than a vote in Maine if the districts splits.
Where I'm confused is why you are making a distinction of states using that popular vote within the state as if it is contrary to believing in the Electoral College. Using a popular vote and a winner take all format is crucial to the format. Nebraska and Maine NOT doing the winner take all format is to their detriment in light of others doing it.
But let's say every state copies Maine and Nebraska. Let's say that every district voted the for whatever party that currently holds the House of Representatives in their district. That's 241 votes for Trump. And Trump won 30 states(Nebraska and Maine use the popular vote to decide the two extra seats), so that's 301 EC votes for Trump. Now, I know the Republicans Gerrymandered a ton of states and this helps their House of Representative numbers... but in this hypothetical scenario where Hillary won 20 states and D.C. for 42 EC votes and Trump won 30 states for 60 votes, you're looking at 18 votes. Let's look at a state that wasn't Gerrymandered by Republicans... California. California voted 61% Hilldog, almost a 2:1 margin over Trump, but in this scenario, 77% of their EC votes go to Hilldog. Think about that. By the nature of California being California, and by that I mean having fairly similar shared values, even if they are different than the rest of the countries, and even if those shared values mean they feel they aren't free to share their values with eachother, but force them on other states, they've reached a critical point that would make their votes CRAZY powerful.
Let's think of a swing state in this hypothetical land where every state is by Congressional District instead of Winner Take All. California's 27 built in margin is almost insurmountable. And in New York's built in margin of 11, and you have something insurmountable. Meaning by those two states being 60% + in one camp, they would be infinitely more powerful than a coalition of states, even with more people at 55%. Which is why everyone going by Congressional District wouldn't work. Throw in a couple more states, and why a winner take all is crucial for the Electoral College. Throw in Connecticut and Massachusetts that are all blue, Illinois that's mostly blue, and you've shut out everyone else. Any dissension, even small, it's game over. Which is the issue.
Getting 75% of a few key areas should NEVER be the goal. And it's even MORE true in a straight popular vote/ If you get 75% of California and New York, which is only 13% of the population... if you just appeal to big government tailored to JUST those two states... every other state is almost irrelevant. Okay. Lemme put it this way.
Pure popular vote do decide the President. Let's say I'm a run of the mill Democrat. I stand for certain left wing things that 25 of the country buys in to. But on TOP of that, I specifically target the West Coast, D.C., Chicago, and New England. Now. Let's just round up. This is roughly 33% of the population People in touch with urban wants and desires. At the same time completely out of touch with most middle American interests and life challenges. As opposed to someone in the Midwest, Texas, the Rust Belt, which are all MUCH more different than New York/Chicago/LA/Seattle/San Fran/D.C.
But let's just take that solidly blue thing and say I can get 75% of that. The rest of the country could be 60% against me, and it wouldn't matter. Think about that. 60% of 200 million people is less valuable than 75% of 100. You interpreted that correctly, 75 million people's voices under a straight popular vote would matter more than 120 million.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 3:00 pm to TeLeFaWx
You're gonna have to give me some time on this one. 
But I'll say I should have been more clear in that it's the popular vote per state. That's on me.
But I'll say I should have been more clear in that it's the popular vote per state. That's on me.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 3:34 pm to cas4t
I both love and hate Fawx. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but occasionally he can make me feel kind of stupid.
Here's the scary thing, he could have pulled everything he just said out of his arse, and you and I would never know
Here's the scary thing, he could have pulled everything he just said out of his arse, and you and I would never know
Posted on 2/23/17 at 3:49 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Here's the scary thing, he could have pulled everything he just said out of his arse, and you and I would never know
There is a 75% chance he is right about 66% of the things he is saying.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 5:14 pm to TeLeFaWx
Well damn, my n*gga. That was exhaustive
Posted on 2/23/17 at 5:17 pm to TeLeFaWx
Alright, I appreciate your response and all in all your point is that the EC is designed to restrict the power of the majority, so as to ensure the sparsely populated states in middle America have a say, and that the popular vote would all but eliminate any chance at a candidate giving 2 squirts of piss about their issues. I follow, although I didn't check your math at the end, because it's almost 5:00 on a Thursday and I'm fricking spent.
My argument has been this, and I'll try to word differently- unless those states are evenly split among the 2 parties, the electoral college is irrelevant. That's what I was trying to say when I said that it only matters in swing states (the open to corruption piece). Not only are they already required by state law to vote according to the state's popular vote, but everyone already know which way they will fall before the election starts. That's of course unless they are split among the 2 parties, then they are basically a swing state, and we've come full circle to my previous post. We already have a system where the middle of nowhere states can technically be ignored, and at the end of the day, swing states and rogue electors decide the president of the US. That's crazy to me. What was, arguably, orginanlly intended to give the little guy a say has now become, give the swing state electors far too much power.
Not to mention those EC votes for the middle-of-bumfrick states already are accounted for fairly with the senate seats, as you mentioned. It isn't coastal states fault that the Midwest states are sparsely populated. Their vote shouldn't carry more weight just because.
I'm not proposing another layer. I'd propose a 1 person=1 vote, count them, and the majority wins. If this results in some folks feeling as though they were taken to the woodshed, well, that's not any different than our current system. Because we have to decide between only 2 parties at the end of the day, no matter what Johnson voters will tell you. This election proved that moreso than any others I can recall. It would undoubtedly result in hella candidates, which some will argue is a bad thing, but I personally think it would be of great benefit because candidates wouldn't be forced to take a hard line approach specifically to appeal to 1 group. The majority of the country identifies as independents and would prefer a middle of the road candidate that appeals to ALL Americans, coastal and rural. I also think it's a faux argument to assume that a candidate would campaign only on coastal states, and therefore not give a shite about rural states. Says who? Anyways, that is irrelevant to my point because I'm not proposing that sort of system anyways.
My argument has been this, and I'll try to word differently- unless those states are evenly split among the 2 parties, the electoral college is irrelevant. That's what I was trying to say when I said that it only matters in swing states (the open to corruption piece). Not only are they already required by state law to vote according to the state's popular vote, but everyone already know which way they will fall before the election starts. That's of course unless they are split among the 2 parties, then they are basically a swing state, and we've come full circle to my previous post. We already have a system where the middle of nowhere states can technically be ignored, and at the end of the day, swing states and rogue electors decide the president of the US. That's crazy to me. What was, arguably, orginanlly intended to give the little guy a say has now become, give the swing state electors far too much power.
Not to mention those EC votes for the middle-of-bumfrick states already are accounted for fairly with the senate seats, as you mentioned. It isn't coastal states fault that the Midwest states are sparsely populated. Their vote shouldn't carry more weight just because.
I'm not proposing another layer. I'd propose a 1 person=1 vote, count them, and the majority wins. If this results in some folks feeling as though they were taken to the woodshed, well, that's not any different than our current system. Because we have to decide between only 2 parties at the end of the day, no matter what Johnson voters will tell you. This election proved that moreso than any others I can recall. It would undoubtedly result in hella candidates, which some will argue is a bad thing, but I personally think it would be of great benefit because candidates wouldn't be forced to take a hard line approach specifically to appeal to 1 group. The majority of the country identifies as independents and would prefer a middle of the road candidate that appeals to ALL Americans, coastal and rural. I also think it's a faux argument to assume that a candidate would campaign only on coastal states, and therefore not give a shite about rural states. Says who? Anyways, that is irrelevant to my point because I'm not proposing that sort of system anyways.
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 2/23/17 at 5:23 pm to Vols&Shaft83
I followed what he said, but I agree with him that we are just not communicating effectively. Message boards are hard.
My point is that the system could use to be simplified, 1 vote per person. Not by state. Not by district. No additional layers. Simply count the votes. I think more people would vote. Think about it- people say the popular vote doesn't matter because if you are a republican in CA, or a dem in MS, why even vote? I disagree, but unfortunately there is some logic there and it's how it plays out. Therefore our popular vote is sort of irrelevant. It's diluted and leaves the election in the hands of swing states at the end of the day.
This format could should and would likely lead to voting reform too, which id like to think we all agree is egregious that you have to basically take off work on X day to vote, at a booth. And each state has its own format for counting them. Why? It needs to be more convenient and simplified.
My point is that the system could use to be simplified, 1 vote per person. Not by state. Not by district. No additional layers. Simply count the votes. I think more people would vote. Think about it- people say the popular vote doesn't matter because if you are a republican in CA, or a dem in MS, why even vote? I disagree, but unfortunately there is some logic there and it's how it plays out. Therefore our popular vote is sort of irrelevant. It's diluted and leaves the election in the hands of swing states at the end of the day.
This format could should and would likely lead to voting reform too, which id like to think we all agree is egregious that you have to basically take off work on X day to vote, at a booth. And each state has its own format for counting them. Why? It needs to be more convenient and simplified.
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:48 pm to pvilleguru
Seems to be some liberals in the house.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 11:27 pm to tiger chaser
You probably don't see many in Stewart, MS, but they definitely exist. It's like a 12 point buck, for reference.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 6:52 am to tiger chaser
Ok?
Posted on 2/24/17 at 7:27 am to cas4t
quote:
I'd propose a 1 person=1 vote, count them, and the majority wins.
Immediate and damn near permanent power shift in favor of those who live in densely populated areas. It'd devolve into mob rule within one election cycle (and I say this as a resident of one of the top 10 largest American cities). It's a simple approach that'd work on a micro level, but not on the macro level in a country as large/varied in population density as ours, IMO.
I do think there needs to be an overhaul/standardization of the voting process, though. Ridiculous that we live in such an advanced/interconnected age and our voting procedures are so archaic and varied from state to state, county to county.
Two biggest proposals right off the bat: require voting IDs across the board, and make election day a national holiday (and/or mandate that employers grant employees one paid holiday within the fortnight window before the election to go vote).
Posted on 2/24/17 at 7:32 am to TbirdSpur2010
Not if we had voting reform and folks in rural areas didn't have to drive 30 minutes to the nearest town to vote. Online voting or even making it a federal holiday and I think it'd be impossible to skip middle America. I understand you can't have one without the other. We're on the same page. I definitely understand that point with the current system.
Unfortunately I don't foresee this happening anytime soon. Maybe if Sanders had been elected.
Unfortunately I don't foresee this happening anytime soon. Maybe if Sanders had been elected.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 7:34 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 7:48 am to cas4t
quote:
Not if we had voting reform and folks in rural areas didn't have to drive 30 minutes to the nearest town to vote. Online voting or even making it a federal holiday and I think it'd be impossible to skip middle America.
You'd still have the same problem, though--the major population centers would still hold all the power through sheer numbers alone. I'm not so much worried about middle/rural America being skipped as much as I'm saying their participation (made easier or not through, say, online voting) would be rendered basically moot on the federal level.
quote:
Unfortunately I don't foresee this happening anytime soon. Maybe if Sanders had been elected.
No home run choices this election, but I don't think Sanders' likely strides toward voting reform would be enough to atone for the other messes he'd likely have made along the way (not saying you were implying that or trying to derail the thread off of voting reform, just kind of stream of consciousness typing here
) Posted on 2/24/17 at 8:09 am to cas4t
quote:
Online voting
No, oh hell no. There should NEVER be a voting system that doesn't have a paper backup. Too much chance for manipulation with absolutely no way to prove or disprove it.
quote:
making it a federal holiday
Should have been done a long, long time ago.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 12:20 pm to cas4t
quote:
The majority of the country identifies as independents and would prefer a middle of the road candidate that appeals to ALL Americans, coastal and rural. I also think it's a faux argument to assume that a candidate would campaign only on coastal states, and therefore not give a shite about rural states. Says who? Anyways, that is irrelevant to my point because I'm not proposing that sort of system anyways.
What I believe is that a middle of the road candidate wouldn't rise to the top in a straight popular vote. In a straight popular vote, the goal is to homogenize the interests of a few key areas, and rely on differences in the rest of the country. As I was rereading my long arse post I did a terrible job explaining it, especially the numbers part, but I'm gonna try one more time. Let's just go back to the idea of the 200 million people in the "red" area and the 100 million in the "blue" area. I know this is an imperfect model, but it mirrors reality in some sort of way.
The 200 million people in the red area consists of Texas, the Rust Belt, Big Sky, the Gulf Coast, the Midwest, Dixie, the Southwest. Think of all the variety in that 200 million people. If a candidate could win 54% of the vote among those people, it would represent a lot in my mind. It would mean that the candidate was truly about broad appeal, and truly wasn't favoring one industry or one region. I truly believe that that is unbelievably important. People vote in their own self interests, but if a candidate has a message with that broad of an appeal, it's probably something we should pay attention to.
But let's remember that blue group, only half the size of the red group. The 100 million in the blue represents the West Coast, East Coast, D.C., Chicago and New England. This group isn't as varied as the red group. In fact, their voting interests are much easier to pander to. If a candidate gets 60% of that group with a targeted and specialized message, but only gets 46% of the red area, they still win it running away. Which is what I have a problem with because that 60% number is what the blue areas are getting pretty consistently, and a hipster in Brooklyn, an app designer in San Francisco, a wannabe activist in D.C, a yuccie in Chicago, or a bleeding heart in Hollywood... those 5 are interchangeable to me. None of them know anything outside of their bubble, and I think it's it's easier to pander to 60% of them than it would be 54% of these 10... a roughneck in West Texas, a real estate agent in Dallas, a port worker in Miami, a factory worker in Cincinnati, a rancher in Wyoming, a pharma rep in Nashville/Brentwood, a supply chain manager in St. Louis, a power plant worker in Phoenix, a farmer in the Corn Belt, and an airline executive in Atlanta.
And I know this is an oversimplification, but I think just by the very nature of the urban/rural dynamic, the specialized industries in each region, and the isolated nature of people in their own worlds, the Electoral College does a better job than a popular vote would. I live in a big city, have worked in small towns, have family in small towns, and have traveled a ton. I really think at the end of the day, everyone is a good person and wants to do what's right for themselves, their families, their communities, and even the world. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think a fair system is one that prevents any one power from being able to exercise their self interests. Inevitably it antagonizes the ability of others to do so themselves. The best systems are the ones that by their very nature promote equity that we would otherwise be unable to do on our own. I love California. I think the weather is obnoxiously unfair and beautiful and they have done a great job trying to take care of their state. However, I find many of them to be ignorant and don't understand how they benefit from the rest of the country doing things a different way. They are completely out of touch with the rest of the country, and they don't understand how a lot of the world works. I don't believe this is some trait exclusive to California, however there is a desert and an ocean sandwiching them. They don't get out much. Seriously. They really don't. And yet, they would have the power to singlehandedly determine whatever election they wanted to. They were the only state where Clinton's margin of victory was greater than Obama's was. Hilldog beat Trump by 4.2 million people in California. Without California, Trump wins the popular vote by 1.2 million people. Limiting places like that, and ones that are fairly homogeneous to them, as well intentioned as those people may be, is important, IMO.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 12:22 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
I both love and hate Fawx. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but occasionally he can make me feel kind of stupid.
Here's the scary thing, he could have pulled everything he just said out of his arse, and you and I would never know
Page 8 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News