You guys and your crazy Trump worship

[DKW 86 7,429]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

What BS this is.

This is not about any given election, it's about our system, which is undemocratic. It's worked for minority party in three elections. 

And it's continuing to work keeping congress a minority institution with some members having much less representation than others.

As far as the partisanship, what goes around comes around.  You'll  be singing a different tune when it does.

And that was the whole reason for us being a Republic, the Senate, etc. 

"Next thing we will hear is that we must ban trucks because they dont make good passenger cars." Complaining that something is bad because it doesnt do what it was NOT INTENDED TO DO is kind of strange. 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

What BS this is.

This is not about any given election, it's about our system, which is undemocratic. It's worked for minority party in three elections. 

And it's continuing to work keeping congress a minority institution with some members having much less representation than others.

As far as the partisanship, what goes around comes around.  You'll  be singing a different tune when it does.

 

 

It’s  undemocratic because we are a constitutional republic.  Call your 6th grade teacher and get your money back.

[homersapien 11,392]

Arguments that all provisions provided in a document ratified in 1789 are just as relevant today, are crazy.   (Just ask a black person.  Or a woman for that matter.)

It needs to be changed - once again - to comport with our modern society, which obviously, was the point of my post. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,056]

56 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Any arguments that a document ratified in 1789 is just as relevant today are idiotic.   (Just ask a black person.  Or a woman for that matter.)

It needs to be changed - once again - to comport with our modern society, which obviously, was the point of my post. 

The method to amend the constitution is viable and well known and understood by all Americans (just ask a black person, or a woman).  It can be changed should the need arise to do so. It's not easy, otherwise it could potentially be frivolously changed by idiots like democrats.  So go ahead and have at it.

Edited September 30, 2021 by jj3jordan

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 9/17/2021 at 10:30 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

 

I have a better idea. We vote out the crazies and fix our gerrymandered and biased electoral system so that these Trump cultist no longer have  oversized influence and power over the U.S. government relative to their voting share?  Stop giving 100,000 people in the middle of Utah the exact same national political power as 1,000,000 people in New York have. 

Let them believe what they want, but stop giving them political power that they don't democratically earn or deserve. 

 

First of all, those people in Utah don't have the same political power as the people in New York.  Utah has 4 representatives in Congress and New York has 27, and congressional representation determines electoral votes.

Secondly, the state legislature of New York could vote to allocate electoral votes by proportion of the vote any old time they wanted.  And the citizens of New York elect those representatives.

I know it angers many HUGE government-types to think of states having any autonomy at all and voters being responsible for public policy by way of representatives, but that's how our system was designed.

Third, surely you understand that at least one reason for having a system that includes checks and balances on state representation vs population representation is that even of we're talking about the same federal legislation or action, in many cases—maybe the majority of cases—those laws or actions don't necessarily affect people the same based on where in the country they live.

Federal allocations for schools or roads or tax laws or any number of things have different repercussions for people in Brooklyn vs people in Montana.

Fourth, all the Democrats I see whining (sorry, I don't want to be offensive, but that's what it is) about the electoral college seem to think that if the POTUS was elected by popular vote everything wold stay the same as it is right now, the only difference is that they would have won a couple of recent national elections that they lost.

That's problematic for at least two reasons I can think of.  For one thing, people in many states who didn't vote because they felt like their vote wouldn't count under an electoral system might vote if they feel like their vote counted.  And who knows what the outcome of that would have been?  If those two elections had been held with a popular vote, their candidate may well have lost the popular vote.

For another—I'm no expert on this—but people who are experts on this sort of thing seem to be in agreement as far as I can tell that abolishing the electoral college would end up changing the political structure considerably.

What I have read is that the consensus of opinion is that we would no longer have a two-party system.  We would likely have somewhere between 3-5 viable parties and the agendas of those parties would likely be significantly more extreme.

Because you could theoretically win an election under that system with no more than 21% of the vote.

As an example, a year or two ago there was a hubub about white supremacy in the US and someone was going 'round and claiming that as much as 20% of the country were white supremacists.  Now I don't believe that estimate for a single hot second, but I'll bet there are some here who did/do.

How would you like a White Supremacy or Neo-Nazi Party being a viable political force in America?

Or if you don't like that example, there's way more people than that in the country who are anti-COVID vaxxers.  A party with that as a central interest could win a national election.

My advice is to be very careful what you ask for lest you actually get it.

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

First of all, those people in Utah don't have the same political power as the people in New York.  Utah has 4 representatives in Congress and New York has 27, and congressional representation determines electoral votes.

Secondly, the state legislature of New York could vote to allocate electoral votes by proportion of the vote any old time they wanted.  And the citizens of New York elect those representatives.

Utah has 2.3 million voting age people and 6 electoral votes or 1 Electoral vote per 383,333 people

New York has 15.3 million voting age population and 29 electoral votes or 1 electoral vote per 527,586 voting age population

Utah doesn't have the "same" power, but they do have outsized power. 

 

Quote

I know it angers many HUGE government-types to think of states having any autonomy at all and voters being responsible for public policy by way of representatives, but that's how our system was designed.

Third, surely you understand that at least one reason for having a system that includes checks and balances on state representation vs population representation is that even of we're talking about the same federal legislation or action, in many cases—maybe the majority of cases—those laws or actions don't necessarily affect people the same based on where in the country they live.

That's correct. which is why each state has elected representatives to push their interests and needs. Not a reason to not have popular vote presidential elections. 

Quote

Federal allocations for schools or roads or tax laws or any number of things have different repercussions for people in Brooklyn vs people in Montana.

Fourth, all the Democrats I see whining (sorry, I don't want to be offensive, but that's what it is) about the electoral college seem to think that if the POTUS was elected by popular vote everything wold stay the same as it is right now, the only difference is that they would have won a couple of recent national elections that they lost.

That's problematic for at least two reasons I can think of.  For one thing, people in many states who didn't vote because they felt like their vote wouldn't count under an electoral system might vote if they feel like their vote counted.  And who knows what the outcome of that would have been?  If those two elections had been held with a popular vote, their candidate may well have lost the popular vote.

Who says that? I'd say a majority of Democrats DO want big changes and reform in federal/state elections. Reforming or getting rid of the electoral college SHOULD bring with it more widespread changes. It'd be a shame if it didn't

And ok, if the Republicans win via popular vote then that's fine. We're tired of Republicans winning with minority support. 

Quote

 

For another—I'm no expert on this—but people who are experts on this sort of thing seem to be in agreement as far as I can tell that abolishing the electoral college would end up changing the political structure considerably.

That'd be awesome!

Quote

What I have read is that the consensus of opinion is that we would no longer have a two-party system.  We would likely have somewhere between 3-5 viable parties and the agendas of those parties would likely be significantly more extreme.

Please stop, I can only get so excited!

I don't know about "more extreme", but this type of political party system is what most of the worlds democracies operate under. Most countries have 3-5 viable parties in every election and some of those parties will inevitably have extreme views, but in most cases those parties get a minority of votes and power in comparison to other parties. 

 

Who in the world would consider it a bad thing for America to have more than 2 viable political parties for a change. That'd be great. 

Quote

Because you could theoretically win an election under that system with no more than 21% of the vote.

Ranked choice voting would help prevent this 

Quote

 

How would you like a White Supremacy or Neo-Nazi Party being a viable political force in America?

Or if you don't like that example, there's way more people than that in the country who are anti-COVID vaxxers.  A party with that as a central interest could win a national election.

Is this where I make a joke about how we already have a viable and powerful political party in America with all these things in it?  

Seriously though, I'd much rather the white supremacist's and neo-nazis have to form their own fringe political party that would get a very small minority amount rather than these groups melding themselves into the Base of the Republican Party and 'poisoning the well' so to speak because like you said, America has only 2 real political parties so the extremes from both sides have to decide if they'll ride along with the party closest to their ideals or if they go independent and have no power and no say in government period. 

Of course this depends on parties clearly making their own efforts to keep extreme idea's out of their ranks with the belief that their normal voters would punish them for it if they don't. The Republican Party doesn't outright advocate for white supremacy views (Tucker Carlson's popularity makes this point debatable)....but they certainly don't make an effort to discourage these views from being a part of their constituency. 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[homersapien 11,392]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

First of all, those people in Utah don't have the same political power as the people in New York.  Utah has 4 representatives in Congress and New York has 27, and congressional representation determines electoral votes.

 

Districts are manipulated by political parties to unfairly favor one party over another. The senate - which is grossly miss representative of the population - currently has ultimate control of everything (and land doesn't vote, people do.)

All of these issues can be changed to make our democracy more representative than it is.

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

29 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Utah has 2.3 million voting age people and 6 electoral votes or 1 Electoral vote per 383,333 people

New York has 15.3 million voting age population and 29 electoral votes or 1 electoral vote per 527,586 voting age population

Utah doesn't have the "same" power, but they do have outsized power. 

 

That's correct. which is why each state has elected representatives to push their interests and needs. Not a reason to not have popular vote presidential elections. 

Who says that? I'd say a majority of Democrats DO want big changes and reform in federal/state elections. Reforming or getting rid of the electoral college SHOULD bring with it more widespread changes. It'd be a shame if it didn't

And ok, if the Republicans win via popular vote then that's fine. We're tired of Republicans winning with minority support. 

That'd be awesome!

Please stop, I can only get so excited!

I don't know about "more extreme", but this is the type of political party system is what most of the worlds democracies operate under. Most countered have 3-5 viable parties in every election and some of those parties will inevitably have extreme views, but in most cases those parties get a minority of votes and power in comparison to other parties. 

 

Who in the world would consider it a bad thing for America to have more than 2 viable political parties for a change. That'd be great. 

Ranked choice voting would help prevent this 

Is this where I make a joke about how we already have a viable and powerful political party in America with all these things in it?  

Seriously though, I'd much rather the white supremacist's and neo-nazis have to form their own fringe political party that would get a very small minority amount rather than these groups melding themselves into the Base of the Republican Party and 'poisoning the well' so to speak because like you said, America has only 2 real political parties so the extremes from both sides have to decide if they'll ride alone with the party closest to their ideals or if they go independent and have no power and no pay in government period. 

Of course this depends on parties clearly making their own efforts to keep extreme idea's out of their ranks with the belief that their normal voters would punish them for it if they don't. The Republican Party doesn't outright advocate for white supremacy views (Tucker Carlson's popularity makes this point debatable)....but they certainly don't make an effort to discourage these views from being a part of their constituency. 

 

All fair points.  Don't know that I agree with all of them, but thanks for the thoughtful and civil reply.  I will consider your viewpoint.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Districts are manipulated by political parties to unfairly favor one party over another. The senate - which is grossly miss representative of the population - currently has ultimate control of everything (and land doesn't vote, people do.)

All of these issues can be changed to make our democracy more representative than it is.

 

Again, a fair point.  I don't know if the baby has to go out with that bathwater, though.  Maybe it does.  Maybe it's impossible to accurately and fairly draw district lines.  Again, I will consider this point.