Electoral College: Closer to being gone than you think

[tomalak301]

No, the people living in those states will simply have the same amount of voting power as any other person does. As it currently is, someone living in Wyoming has more voting power than you do. Removing the electoral college would make the people matter, not the states. And that's how it should be.

Not if you're a republican considering two of the major populous states always lean democrat.

Basically if I'm in Delaware or Rhode Island I would feel like my vote doesn't matter because New York and California would decide the elections. How is that fair representation?

You're going from one extreme to the other, which is why I like my proportional idea.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

@Skywalker is absolutely right. In a popular election, states don't decide anything, only people do.

 

[publiusr]

Kirk personally stepped up to stop the enhanced interrogation of a prisoner by a Federation member. The American right wing cries every time that episode airs. Kirk was no conservative, by today's American standards.

Standards change. I've heard it said that jefferson was considered a liberal when he first took office, but was considered conservative when he left.. Neo-liberalism is actually conservative economics--bah--I don't have much hair left to pull out.

 

[GabyBee]

the small states will be irrelevant.

Maybe not directly because of the electoral college, but in the primary system for both parties small states like Iowa and New Hampshire have ENORMOUS influence in the election.

Conversely, I live in Boston, one of the largest cities in the U.S., which is in Massachusetts, one of the most developed states in the country. And my vote is worth almost nothing when it comes to presidential elections. A Republican in Massachusetts (of which I am not, but using for sake of argument), or a Democrat in Texas have soooooooooo little say in who becomes president, and that is just downright undemocratic.

 

[publiusr]

Then too, we see California as a blue state--and yet there are red areas there too. In some respects, the electoral college actually helps Democrats overall.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Not if you're a republican considering two of the major populous states always lean democrat.

Basically if I'm in Delaware or Rhode Island I would feel like my vote doesn't matter because New York and California would decide the elections. How is that fair representation?

You're going from one extreme to the other, which is why I like my proportional idea.

Then you just happen to be part of the minority of the whole of the people.
Granted, the needs of minorities should not be entirely ignored, but maybe ask yourself why your position is in the minority.
What is the flaw of your position so the majority opposes that?

 

[Refuge]

Tripping over themselves excusing him? Seriously?

How old were you when Bill Clinton was impeached? Were you even born? Because that's... not at all how I remember it. I was in my 20's and 30's during the Ken Starr witch hunt and the subsequent impeachment circus, and I remember it much differently. Here's what I remember:

By the time of the impeachment, Bill Clinton's political enemies had been after him for years to get him for something. After years of investigation by Ken Starr over Whitewater, Travelgate, and Paula Jones, the only thing Clinton's enemies could come up with against him had to do with sex and lying about sex. Much to their disappointment and to their embarrassment, there were no bodies, there were no criminal conspiracies, there was no political corruption, there was no abuse of Presidential power, such as what they'd been after.

It must suck for Trump supporters to know that Bill Clinton had a better approval rating across his whole Presidency than Trump does now. While Clinton was getting impeached, it wasn't even close. That's because people know the difference between being the target of an actual witch hunt and being a snowflake.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/21/u...r-president-for-closure-emerges-unshaken.html

And yet, people knew at the time that what Bill Clinton did was wrong. People had no illusions that he was lying.

http://www.people-press.org/1998/08/04/americans-unmoved-by-prospect-of-clinton-lewinsky-testimony/

Why else do you think there were so many "is-is" jokes, and the jokes were so popular at the time? Or, maybe you don't member those either for some reason.

There was no stark contrast between his supporters tripping over themselves to excuse Clinton and whatever is insinuated to be the opposite of that. The fact that you would suggest such extreme hyper-partisan support is a pretty clear giveaway that you're looking back on history through a lens that's biased in terms of today's polarized public opinions. No, what happened at the time was that Clinton had broad popular support and forgiveness, despite most people understanding that what he did was wrong.

So, in short, you're really dead wrong. Feeling charitable, I'll chalk it up to misinformation.

As for your jab at Hillary, please. Don't make me laugh at the ignorance you're displaying.

Spare me your apologist retrospection, your bias is blinding. However feel free to preach to the converted I'm sure they'll lap it up.

I don't care how many people thought the sun shone out of Clinton's butt hole he was a liar and a creep. He lied to his people and if his approval rating is supposed to validate that, it says more about the hypocrites who are into this witch hunt now and chose to turn a blind eye to what they didn't want to believe.. 'Snowflake' what is that supposed to mean?

Don't make me laugh at the filtering you are displaying.

 

[{ Emilia }]

He still didn't run for president in 2016. And I don't see Hillary's "character flaws" being nearly as disgusting and nasty as Trump's.

Plus... it's really about policies, right? Who cares about a politician's personal life as long as they're promoting good policies? Their personal life doesn't affect me, unless it's really insanely horrible (like bragging about sexual assault and thus somehow normalizing it).

 

[Refuge]

The high road would have been to leave Hillary out of it. She herself wasn't having the alleged affairs. Instead, her enemies just delighted in seeing her squirm in humiliation. Such delight is an indication of low character.

Reminds me of how Trump's enemies have gone after his children and his wife..

Hillary shamed women everywhere by standing by Bill. She did it so she could one day have a chance to run for President.

She lost.

 

[urbandefault]

The best advice is something often repeated but seldom heeded: "Be careful what you wish for ... ".

 

[Refuge]

Not if you're a republican considering two of the major populous states always lean democrat.

Basically if I'm in Delaware or Rhode Island I would feel like my vote doesn't matter because New York and California would decide the elections. How is that fair representation?

You're going from one extreme to the other, which is why I like my proportional idea.

Removing the Electoral College is a call from those choking on sour grapes. Frankly it was the only way those in the 'lesser' states were not further marginalized.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Removing the Electoral College is a call from those choking on sour grapes. Frankly it was the only way those in the 'lesser' states were not further marginalized.

So you think a minority of the population should get more of a say than the majority?

Right now, rural areas have an unfair advantage in representation.

 

[MacLeod]

Reminds me of how Trump's enemies have gone after his children and his wife..

Hillary shamed women everywhere by standing by Bill. She did it so she could one day have a chance to run for President.

She lost.

And how many people have had affairs and their spouse forgiven them? To err is human to forgive divine.

 

[Refuge]

But if the Presidential Platform is so great, then surely the President should have a high approval rating? Has Trump ever had a net positive rating?

Besides surely the aim of any party is to increase its vote share, number of elected officals etc... So sometimes it is wise to moderate your position just enough that you can widen your appeal outside of your base support without losing that bse support.

Is today's world (at least in Western countries) more liberal than say a generation ago? If countries have become more liberal over the years parties either have to move with the times or see themselves moving more to the ends of the spectrum.

This seems to be a theme, the idea that if you can rearrange the landscape you can still carry the day. Your data base for approval rating.. it would't happen to be the same sources that predicted the election? If so.. I wouldn't place a lot faith in those. The final result is all the rating that is needed until the next election.

It was up to Obama to service the Democrat platform and it was up to Hillary to continue that. It is not Trump's job. He.. shock.. but he actually did have people who voted for him. Yes that must be inconceivable to the haters but he did. Is he supposed to downgrade those who liked his platform to do Hillary's job, er.. one she didn't get?

I think it is touch and go whether the world is more liberal or conservative at the moment. Mixed bag.. However what is not uncertain is that no matter who is in charge they need to at least make some attempt in following through with their policies. If Trump doesn't get the support to make changes then so be it, but of course he's going to try. Remember he won the election..

 

[urbandefault]

So you think a minority of the population should get more of a say than the majority?

Right now, rural areas have an unfair advantage in representation.

Elections go one way, then the other. The system was designed so that no single segment of society can dominate indefinitely.

One election is not the death of the country, despite what the "sky is falling" demographic would have you believe.

I'd suggest that everyone just take a breath and worry about their own lives and let the system sort itself out. It always has, and it always will.

The United States of America will persevere. Or something like that.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Elections go one way, then the other. The system was designed so that no single segment of society can dominate indefinitely.

This doesn't change the fact that with the current system votes aren't equally weighted.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Spare me your apologist retrospection, your bias is blinding. However feel free to preach to the converted I'm sure they'll lap it up.

I don't care how many people thought the sun shone out of Clinton's butt hole he was a liar and a creep. He lied to his people and if his approval rating is supposed to validate that, it says more about the hypocrites who are into this witch hunt now and chose to turn a blind eye to what they didn't want to believe.. 'Snowflake' what is that supposed to mean?

Don't make me laugh at the filtering you are displaying.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you believe; it wasn't written for you. It was simply a general reply to your attempts to misrepresent history.

 

[Refuge]

So you think a minority of the population should get more of a say than the majority?

Right now, rural areas have an unfair advantage in representation.

Representation is more than densely populated coastal areas and cities. For all the States to have a voice that will actually be heard representation is equalized. I do believe the Electoral College has served the country as a whole, and for many elections. I think if Trump had gone into the election with the mindset of gaining a popular vote head count he would've adapted his campaign strategy and the result would be different. I don't know exactly what but frankly I wouldn't trust any of the polls as far as I can throw them.

The Electoral College has not changed so I don't understand why it is being made a scapegoat. Look to other countries in the world. At any given time in electorates that have more than two major parties, the party that actually wins has the governing margin. Might even get the highest popular vote of a single party. However, collectively votes to the opposition and minority parties might tally up as a bigger majority. That occurs.. a lot. Governments have to rule and if it happens that a minority of representation from actual voters who bothered to get out there and within an accepted system, carry the day... then yes, I believe the defined 'minority' of that population has earned that right. Until the next election.

 

[Refuge]

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you believe; it wasn't written for you. It was simply a general reply to your attempts to misrepresent history.

Touchy touchy. How was I to know that when you wrote it to me it wasn't written to me.. you referenced me throughout.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Touchy touchy. How was I to know that when you wrote it to me it wasn't written to me.. you referenced me throughout.

I didn't say it wasn't written to you. I said it wasn't written for you. The likelihood of engaging in constructive conversation with you was something I always recognized as low. You speak in stark hyper-partisan terms and twist the truth. Reading your posts is like watching Fox News. Odds were a conversation with you would go nowhere, so there was never an undertaking on my part to post for your benefit. That would have been foolish. The only thing constructive here is just making sure it's on the record that I think you're wrong. Mission accomplished.