The Supreme Court Just Pointed Out the Absurdity of the Electoral College

[Mikey 16,591]

13 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Question 2: Do you know that the violent crime rate in Montgomery and Birmingham is higher than that of NYC?  In Birmingham's case, it's exponentially higher.

Birmingham: 19.33 violent crimes per 1,000 residents

Montgomery: 6.13 violent crimes per 1,000 residents

New York City: 4.78 violent crimes per 1,000 residents

How long of a time period do these figures represent? Anything over a month old is irrelevant. I think you probably get that, but simply don't want to admit what's happening in NY. Ostrich much?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, Mikey said:

How long of a time period do these figures represent? Anything over a month old is irrelevant. I think you probably get that, but simply don't want to admit what's happening in NY. Ostrich much?

This is from 2019.  Whether you realize this or not, and based on your posting history I'm going with not, the amount of rise or fall in violent crime it would mathematically take to drastically change those numbers is very large.

And thanks for not answering question 1 in my post.  Kind of proves my point that you haven't experienced much recently outside of your home.

[Mikey 16,591]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is from 2019.

That's what I thought. Irrelevant to this conversation.

How's this for a mathematical change? " For the month of June 2020, the number of people victimized by gun violence and murder in New York City spiked significantly, when compared to the same period in 2019. Between June 1 and June 30, there was a 130% increase in the number of shooting incidents across the city (205 v. 89) as the number of shootings rose in every borough of New York." 

I have never been to New York.  I would have to have been there since de Blasio's neutering of the NYPD for a visit to be relevant anyway. You haven't been there either during the salient period, so your visits there, no matter how many, don't matter at all.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0706/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-june-2020

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

58 minutes ago, Mikey said:

That's what I thought. Irrelevant to this conversation.

How's this for a mathematical change? " For the month of June 2020, the number of people victimized by gun violence and murder in New York City spiked significantly, when compared to the same period in 2019. Between June 1 and June 30, there was a 130% increase in the number of shooting incidents across the city (205 v. 89) as the number of shootings rose in every borough of New York." 

So you do realize that even with a temporary 130% increase (we're talking about one month after all), it's STILL safer than Birmingham by a MASSIVE margin, right? 

Let's just look at that same June timeline, shall we?

In June, 8 people were murdered in Birmingham.  The city's population is about 210,000.    That's one murder for every 26,250 people.

In that same month, NYC had 39 people murdered.  There are 8.4 million residents.  That's one murder for every 215,384 residents.

Last month, you were nearly 10 times more likely to be murdered in Birmingham than NYC.

So I ask again, which place should you really be watching your back in?

Your assertion that it's anything like 1970s NYC is ridiculous.  Crime in NYC is still down nearly 80% over the last three decades.  See it for yourself straight from the City of NY.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs-en-us-city.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwihr7Gtwc7qAhVC-qwKHcabCQUQFjABegQICBAC&usg=AOvVaw3Quzm-nx24VBx70qB_D4q1

Tell you what, let's make another bet that you can lose since Biden will be nominated in about a month and that one officially becomes a loss for ole Mikey.  I propose we use the same violent crime metric at the end of the year and see which place was more dangerous in 2020: NYC or B'ham.  I have no doubt who "wins" that contest.  Here's a hint: it's the same city that's been "winning" it for over a decade.

58 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I have never been to New York. 

Thanks for proving my point about talking out of your ass about the place.  You should really visit at least once before your sheltered life is over.  It's a magnificent city with amazing food, museums, arts, history, and so much more.  You can spend a full day just walking the place and see so many wonderful, historically important sites.  I pity you actually.

[TexasTiger 12,853]

26 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So you do realize that even with a temporary 130% increase (we're talking about one month after all), it's STILL safer than Birmingham by a MASSIVE margin, right? 

Let's just look at that same June timeline, shall we?

In June, 8 people were murdered in Birmingham.  The city's population is about 210,000.    That's one murder for every 26,250 people.

In that same month, NYC had 39 people murdered.  There are 8.4 million residents.  That's one murder for every 215,384 residents.

Last month, you were nearly 10 times more likely to be murdered in Birmingham than NYC.

So I ask again, which place should you really be watching your back in?

Your assertion that it's anything like 1970s NYC is ridiculous.  Crime in NYC is still down nearly 80% over the last three decades.  See it for yourself straight from the City of NY.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs-en-us-city.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwihr7Gtwc7qAhVC-qwKHcabCQUQFjABegQICBAC&usg=AOvVaw3Quzm-nx24VBx70qB_D4q1

Tell you what, let's make another bet that you can lose since Biden will be nominated in about a month and that one officially becomes a loss for ole Mikey.  I propose we use the same violent crime metric at the end of the year and see which place was more dangerous in 2020: NYC or B'ham.  I have no doubt who "wins" that contest.  Here's a hint: it's the same city that's been "winning" it for over a decade.

Thanks for proving my point about talking out of your ass about the place.  You should really visit at least once before your sheltered life is over.  It's a magnificent city with amazing food, museums, arts, history, and so much more.  You can spend a full day just walking the place and see so many wonderful, historically important sites.  I pity you actually.

Not fair to use math with Mikey.

[homersapien 11,371]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Not fair to use math with Mikey.

Not to mention facts.

[Mikey 16,591]

22 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Tell you what, let's make another bet that you can lose since Biden will be nominated in about a month and that one officially becomes a loss for ole Mikey.  I propose we use the same violent crime metric at the end of the year and see which place was more dangerous in 2020: NYC or B'ham.  I have no doubt who "wins" that contest.  Here's a hint: it's the same city that's been "winning" it for over a decade.

No, I propose this bet. That the number of shooting incidents in NYC over the last seven months of 2020 will be more than twice what it was over the same period in 2019. If you win, I'll send one dollar the loony lefty organization of your choice. If I win, you send my dollar to the RNC.

Now, what do crime rates in Birmingham, Toronto or Timbuktu have to do with New York's deterioration? I'll answer for you: Nothing. What NY won in the past has been destroyed in just a few months by gross incompetence. It's hard to say how many decades will be needed to repair de Blasio's blunders.

You do know that I really, really hope I lose our bet and the Dems are stupid enough to put Biden up as their nominee, right? If they do, I will have once again overestimated them. I still think that wiser heads (if they have any) will dump China Joe for a more electable candidate. But I hope they don't, I'll be happy to pay that dollar.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

No, I propose this bet. That the number of shooting incidents in NYC over the last seven months of 2020 will be more than twice what it was over the same period in 2019. If you win, I'll send one dollar the loony lefty organization of your choice. If I win, you send my dollar to the RNC.

It's possible.  Certainly was in June.  I doubt it happens though.  But considering the low number of shootings last year in a city so large, even doubling the number is still pretty low.  It's sort of like, would you rather have double the amount of 20 or 10% of 2,000?  Of course, basic math says I'll take the latter, but that word double is eye popping to some people.

And by the way, if I were to choose an organization, it would be something to help people.  Ya know, like the AU Communication Department or student run media.  I'd rather money go there than to any political organization.  In fact, I've never donated to a political organization.  They have enough money and don't need mine.  Hope those suggestions aren't too "looney" as you love to suggest.

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

No, I propose this bet. That the number of shooting incidents in NYC over the last seven months of 2020 will be more than twice what it was over the same period in 2019. If you win, I'll send one dollar the loony lefty organization of your choice. If I win, you send my dollar to the RNC.

Now, what do crime rates in Birmingham, Toronto or Timbuktu have to do with New York's deterioration? I'll answer for you: Nothing. What NY won in the past has been destroyed in just a few months by gross incompetence. It's hard to say how many decades will be needed to repair de Blasio's blunders.

I bring up Birmingham because, as I mentioned before, you're throwing stones without understanding the warts of your own home state's largest city.  Stop worrying about a much safer place than Birmingham and fix your own damn house.  Alabama as a whole is ranked as the seventh most dangerous state in the country.  Hell, five of the top 7 most dangerous states are sun belt states that voted Republican four years ago and vote that way 90+% of the time (the other two are New Mexico and Alaska).  You ignore all of this info in the name of "left is bad" so that you can throw a barb.  It's incredibly stupid of you, yet so predictable of people from my home state.

Also, NYC has not lost "decades" in a month or two.  That's a patently ridiculous thing to say, though I've come to expect nothing less from you.  Even if shootings doubled in NYC the rest of the year, which I doubt they will, then the numbers still wouldn't be close to what they were 30-40 years ago when the place was truly dangerous.

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

You do know that I really, really hope I lose our bet and the Dems are stupid enough to put Biden up as their nominee, right? If they do, I will have once again overestimated them. I still think that wiser heads (if they have any) will dump China Joe for a more electable candidate. But I hope they don't, I'll be happy to pay that dollar.

 

You keep thinking that.

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

You ignore all of this info in the name of "left is bad" so that you can throw a barb.  It's incredibly stupid of you, yet so predictable of people from my home state.

We may be under-educated, fat, poor and increasingly full of COVID, but we dare defend our rights. Hock spit.

 

[Mikey 16,591]

14 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I bring up Birmingham because,

Because it's a way to try to deflect attention from the deterioration that is currently wrecking New York.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

30 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Because it's a way to try to deflect attention from the deterioration that is currently wrecking New York.

Considering you've never stepped foot there, you wouldn't know what would be considered "wrecking" in the first place.

And your retort is one of a man who knows he's losing this based on facts.  It's not a deflection on my part.  It's a comparison.  I've acknowledged that NYC did have a rough June.  You have yet to acknowledge the stank emoting from your own back yard.

[Mikey 16,591]

22 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Considering you've never stepped foot there, you wouldn't know what would be considered "wrecking" in the first place.

Neither one of us has stepped foot in New York since the current debacle there. I can, however, see the statistical reports. Those are pertinent facts. You've lost this discussion and are trying to save face by talking about distant times and distant places when those times and places have nothing to do with the current topic.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

33 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Neither one of us has stepped foot in New York since the current debacle there. I can, however, see the statistical reports. Those are pertinent facts. You've lost this discussion and are trying to save face by talking about distant times and distant places when those times and places have nothing to do with the current topic.

Actually none of this sidebar conversation has anything to do with the topic of the thread.  You steered it this way.

And I'm not talking about distant times.  I literally have you comparison numbers from last month.  That you refuse to acknowledge that she's your willful ignorance.  Again, I pity you.

[Mikey 16,591]

23 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I literally have you comparison numbers from last month. 

What do numbers from a place 962 miles away from New York have to do with de Blasio's blunders in New York? Nothing. Evasion should at least contain some variety. You keep on attempting to evade with the same material.

What about the wager I proposed? Not interested? Then you do think that NY's rate of violent crime will double. Smart on your part to not bet.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

40 minutes ago, Mikey said:

What do numbers from a place 962 miles away from New York have to do with de Blasio's blunders in New York? Nothing. Evasion should at least contain some variety. You keep on attempting to evade with the same material.

What about the wager I proposed? Not interested? Then you do think that NY's rate of violent crime will double. Smart on your part to not bet.

I've stated many times what they have to do with NY.  You don't want to have a robust conversation on the topic, so you dismiss it.  Fine, do as you do.  Stay ignorant.

And sure, let's make the bet.  It's a buck.  Whatever.  And I won't be shocked if I still win.

[homersapien 11,371]

12 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I've stated many times what they have to do with NY.  You don't want to have a robust conversation on the topic, so you dismiss it.  Fine, do as you do.  Stay ignorant.

And sure, let's make the bet.  It's a buck.  Whatever.  And I won't be shocked if I still win.

I see the problem here.

You need to explain to Mikey that "robust" means "factual", as defined by actual data.

[Mikey 16,591]

On 7/18/2020 at 11:51 PM, Brad_ATX said:

I've stated many times what they have to do with NY.  You don't want to have a robust conversation on the topic, so you dismiss it.  Fine, do as you do.  Stay ignorant.

And sure, let's make the bet.  It's a buck.  Whatever.  And I won't be shocked if I still win.

A "robust conversation" does not mean let you deflect from the subject of New York's recent debacle that is sure to continue for as long as de Blasio or someone who shares his destructive goals in running the show there.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, Mikey said:

A "robust conversation" does not mean let you deflect from the subject of New York's recent debacle that is sure to continue for as long as de Blasio or someone who shares his destructive goals in running the show there.

Deflect?  I provided actual data showing this "debacle" in context to New York's past as well.  You tried to claim it was erasing 40+ years of progress.  When shown otherwise, you still continued your idiotic arguments. 

Have fun living in your dream world because, simply put, the facts are against your narrative.  Your willful ignorance just to try and slam a Democrat is at the same time stunning, predictable, and pathetic.

[aubiefifty 16,783]

from reddit

CMV: The electoral college is garbage and those that support it are largely doing so because it helps their side, not because of any real feature of the system

 

Delta(s) from OP

I don't think anyone could change my mind on the electoral college, but I'm less certain about the second part. I don't particularly like throwing away swaths of arguments as bad faith, but the arguments for the EC are so thin that it's hard to see supporting it as anything other than a shrewd political ploy. Here are my main reasons for supporting a popular vote rather than the EC.

1. In general, popular sovereignty is good. It should take very powerful considerations to take elections out of the hands of the people. I don't feel the need to argue for a popular vote system because it's so clearly the best option for a nation that claims to be Democratic. You can say the whole Republic/Democracy thing and I super-duper don't care. I know we are a Republic. I passed high school civics. We could have a popular vote system that chooses the executive and still be a Republic. The EC is almost a popular vote system the way it operates now. It's given the same result as a popular vote system 91% of the time. The times that it hasn't have been random, close elections.

2. "One person, one vote" is a valuable principle, and we should strive to live up to it. Simple arithmetic can show that a voter in Wyoming has around 3 times more influence on the EC than a voter in California. This wouldn't be true if it wasn't for the appropriations act in the 1920's, which capped the number of people in the House of Representatives at 435. In the EC as it was designed, California would have many more electoral votes now, and the gap between Wyoming and Cali wouldn't be nearly as large.

3. There is no fundamental value in giving rural America an outsized say in elections. I've often heard that the EC was created to protect rural interests. This isn't true, but even if it was, I don't see the value in giving small states more influence. This is where I developed the idea that most of the arguments are in bad faith. Particularly because the current kind of inequality we have now in the EC was never intended by the founders. If you are supporting the EC just because it favors rural areas, and you also know rural areas tend to vote red, then you just have that position for partisan reasons.

4. The "elector" system is very dumb and bad. Do we really want 538 people that we've never heard of to get the ability to overturn an election? This isn't a group of able statesmen, the electors are largely partisan figures. In most states, you don't even see that you are voting for an elector instead of for a candidate for president. These are elected officials only in the most vague sense of the term. The idea that this ceremonial body is some kind of safe-guard is laughable.

5. The concept of "swing states" is bad for democracy. Focusing on groups of swing voters in 5/6 states leads to undue attention and money being used to persuade smaller groups of voters. It also creates a sense of votes being worthless. I was a Democrat in a deep red state for a long time, and it felt like my vote didn't matter because my state was going to go red anyway. And that's going to be true for most voters, apart from the 5/6 swing states that are uncertain on election day. It's hard to know if that is pushing turnout down, but it certainly isn't having a positive effect.

6. The EC makes elections less secure. Instead of a popular vote system where it would take a hue effort to change enough votes to make a difference, rigging state elections in swing states could have a huge impact. The targets for interference are clear, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, North Carolina and Florida could be changed with relatively small numbers of votes. This also makes voter suppression a tactic that can work on a national scale, if applied in the correct states.

EDIT:

Alright, I need to get to my actual work-job instead of rage-posting about the electoral college. I've enjoyed reading everyone's responses and appreciate your participation. Some final responses to some underlying points I've seen:

1. Lots of people saying I just hate the EC because of Trump. I have literally hated the electoral college since I learned about it in the 6th grade. For me, this isn't (fully) partisan. I absolutely would still be against the electoral college if a Democrat won the EC and a Republican won the popular vote. I know you may I'm lying, and I grant that this isn't something I can really prove, but it's true. Feel free to hold me to it if that ever happens. My position is currently, and always has been, the person who gets more votes should be president.

2. The historic context of the electoral college, while important to understanding the institution, has an outsized influence on how we talk about presidential elections. I would much rather look forward to a better system than opine about how wise the system set up in 1787 was. The founders were smart, smarter than me. But we have 350 years of hindsight of how this system practically works, which is very valuable.

3. I was wrong to say all defenses of the EC were bad faith or partisan, I see that now. I still believe a portion of defenses are, but there are exceptions. The fact that most discussions of the EC happen just after a close election give all discussions surrounding the issue a hyper-partisan tone, but that doesn't have to be the rule.

4. If you think farmers are worth more to the country because they're farmers, I have some news to you about who was doing the farming in 1787. It wasn't the voters, I can tell you that much.

5. I'm sorry if I appeared brusque or unappreciative of your comments, this thread got way more attention than I expected. I'm re-reading my responses now and there's absolutely some wording choices I'd change, but I was in a hurry.

 

[homersapien 11,371]

That was a great argument fifty! 

Thanks for posting it.