Author Topic: Minority rule politics (Read 8469 times)

8manpick · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2018, 03:47:23 PM »

The electoral college is population based, why are we talking about that?

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2018, 03:49:53 PM »

Quote from: 8manpick on July 15, 2018, 03:47:23 PM

The electoral college is population based, why are we talking about that?

Because it isn’t entirely population based because it add the number of senators to the number of reps. Hence Wyoming getting 3 electoral votes despite having a population of about 20,000.

8manpick · « **Reply #27 on:** July 15, 2018, 03:53:19 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 15, 2018, 03:49:53 PM

Quote from: 8manpick on July 15, 2018, 03:47:23 PM
The electoral college is population based, why are we talking about that?

Because it isn’t entirely population based because it add the number of senators to the number of reps. Hence Wyoming getting 3 electoral votes despite having a population of about 20,000.

Yeah, but the “problem” of the electoral college, if there even is one, is more that most states give all their votes to one candidate, rather than allocating votes proportionally.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 15, 2018, 03:56:00 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 15, 2018, 03:43:35 PM

We’re the United States of America. The states aren’t just ceremonial - our union was specifically designed to give the states equal power in the Senate (and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College). But I’m not telling the liberals anything they don’t already know - they just hate the senate and the electoral college because they refuse to acknowledge the real problem: that liberals have increasingly isolated themselves in concentrated groupthink bubbles.

The more realistic road back to political dominance is for liberals to continue colonizing Texas, through illegal immigration and Californians moving to Austin.

Why do you feel only liberals will make up the 70 percent of people who only are represented by 30 percent of the senate. Conservatives live in cities too, and they usually have points of disagreement with rural conservatives.

You're also completely ignoring that employment options are moving more and more to larger population centers. Maybe kdub only thinks liberals will have jobs in 2040?

star seed 7 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 15, 2018, 03:59:30 PM »

The #1 problem with the electoral college is 5million (registered) republicans in California have zero say at all in electing their president. They could vote or not and it has no impact on the outcome.

Now apply that proportionally to like 45/50 states

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #30 on:** July 15, 2018, 04:07:27 PM »

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on July 15, 2018, 03:59:30 PM

The #1 problem with the electoral college is 5million (registered) republicans in California have zero say at all in electing their president. They could vote or not and it has no impact on the outcome.

Now apply that proportionally to like 45/50 states

Yes - that’s the problem. Which is why I always hear pubs bitching about the electoral college. Oh wait, it’s the other way around. Liberals keep trying to change the rules because they keep losing. Tired of the “conservative Supreme Court”? Well the answer is obviously to pack the court or impose term limits. Tired of losing elections despite winning the popular vote because too many liberals are concentrated in urban centers? Well the solution is obviously to abolish the Electoral College!

star seed 7 · « **Reply #31 on:** July 15, 2018, 04:11:44 PM »

You care more about your team winning than the right for each citizen to have equal value in voting. We already know that, you routinely support all manner of voter suppression.

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #32 on:** July 15, 2018, 04:56:10 PM »

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on July 15, 2018, 04:11:44 PM

You care more about your team winning than the right for each citizen to have equal value in voting. We already know that, you routinely support all manner of voter suppression.

Interesting take. Remember all the way back.... in 2016 when Dems we’re confident Hillarity would win the electoral college (just google all the references to the Dems’ “Blue Wall” if want a good laugh) but were worried that she might lose the popular vote? So worried that she actually campaigned in California instead of even once setting foot in, you know, Wisconsin? Funny thing is, I don’t recall many pubs clamoring to end the electoral college then. I know I didn’t.

I support the way our Senate and EC were designed for the reasons I’ve stated herein. It goes back to the bargain that was struck when this union of state’s was founded, and it probably wouldn’t be good for this country to be ruled by densely packed little bubbles of groupthink, Hunger Games style.

And by the way, we don’t even know whether Trump would have lost the popular vote had he followed the Dems’ strategy of “running up the score” instead of actually doing what he needed to win. It’s like one basketball team focusing on time of possession instead of actually scoring, and then whining that they actually should have won, and we ought to change the rules, because they possessed the ball longer than the other team.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 15, 2018, 05:03:18 PM »

I actually was one of the people who thought she'd possibly lose the popular vote. It didn't change my thoughts on the electoral college at all.

And you haven't given any reason to support the ec except that you think it hurts libs, which I guess is at least honest.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #34 on:** July 15, 2018, 05:07:27 PM »

I'd also like to point out that while spracne is better than a but Hillary, it's right in kdubs wheelhouse.

wetwillie · « **Reply #35 on:** July 15, 2018, 05:07:51 PM »

You could organize a fatwah of sorts where you infiltrate enough small states with like minded political compatriots and elect people who would vote to dissolve the oppressive systems currently in place. It would probably only take one generation of sacrifice to make it work.

Spracne · « **Reply #36 on:** July 15, 2018, 05:09:56 PM »

What needs to happen is for a Republican to win the popular vote but lose the EC. That should do it.

Trim · « **Reply #37 on:** July 15, 2018, 05:23:34 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 15, 2018, 03:43:35 PM

We’re the United States of America. The states aren’t just ceremonial

"United" is the ceremonial part.

puniraptor · « **Reply #38 on:** July 15, 2018, 06:21:57 PM »

the only change i would make is to abolish the winner take all allocation of votes and make every state distribute their electoral votes proportionally (husker style)

Mrs. Gooch · « **Reply #39 on:** July 15, 2018, 06:31:15 PM »

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1939792302700023&id=142474049098533

puniraptor · « **Reply #40 on:** July 15, 2018, 06:47:59 PM »

people must understand that when they live in an area of high population density, their individual per capita importance is reduced. i think thats fine

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #41 on:** July 15, 2018, 08:45:37 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 15, 2018, 04:56:10 PM

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on July 15, 2018, 04:11:44 PM
You care more about your team winning than the right for each citizen to have equal value in voting. We already know that, you routinely support all manner of voter suppression.

Interesting take. Remember all the way back.... in 2016 when Dems we’re confident Hillarity would win the electoral college (just google all the references to the Dems’ “Blue Wall” if want a good laugh) but were worried that she might lose the popular vote? So worried that she actually campaigned in California instead of even once setting foot in, you know, Wisconsin? Funny thing is, I don’t recall many pubs clamoring to end the electoral college then. I know I didn’t.

I support the way our Senate and EC were designed for the reasons I’ve stated herein. It goes back to the bargain that was struck when this union of state’s was founded, and it probably wouldn’t be good for this country to be ruled by densely packed little bubbles of groupthink, Hunger Games style.

And by the way, we don’t even know whether Trump would have lost the popular vote had he followed the Dems’ strategy of “running up the score” instead of actually doing what he needed to win. It’s like one basketball team focusing on time of possession instead of actually scoring, and then whining that they actually should have won, and we ought to change the rules, because they possessed the ball longer than the other team.

holy crap, that one is borderline renocat stupid

Kat Kid · « **Reply #42 on:** July 16, 2018, 07:41:19 AM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 15, 2018, 04:56:10 PM

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on July 15, 2018, 04:11:44 PM
You care more about your team winning than the right for each citizen to have equal value in voting. We already know that, you routinely support all manner of voter suppression.

Interesting take. Remember all the way back.... in 2016 when Dems we’re confident Hillarity would win the electoral college (just google all the references to the Dems’ “Blue Wall” if want a good laugh) but were worried that she might lose the popular vote? So worried that she actually campaigned in California instead of even once setting foot in, you know, Wisconsin? Funny thing is, I don’t recall many pubs clamoring to end the electoral college then. I know I didn’t.

People were worried Trump would win the popular vote?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #43 on:** July 16, 2018, 08:12:51 AM »

I like the senate as it is. I think the president should be selected based upon popular vote, though. It's a bit ridiculous to me that somebody could win Florida by 1 vote and then get all of the electoral votes for a nation-wide election.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #44 on:** July 16, 2018, 08:16:52 AM »

Quote from: puniraptor on July 15, 2018, 06:21:57 PM

the only change i would make is to abolish the winner take all allocation of votes and make every state distribute their electoral votes proportionally (husker style)

At that point, why not just move to the popular vote, though? It would be a lot simpler.

Kat Kid · « **Reply #45 on:** July 16, 2018, 08:35:11 AM »

The obvious, doable solution is to admit DC and Puerto Rico as states and then split up California in to 5-7 smaller states. You can go on from there, but it is a decent start.

catastrophe · « **Reply #46 on:** July 16, 2018, 09:07:41 AM »

The House is specifically designed to weigh in favor of larger populations. The Senate is specifically designed to equalize state representation regardless of population. So when you say the makeup of the Senate may not account for the makeup of the US population, I legit can’t tell if you mean that in a good or bad way.

The electoral college is a completely separate issue and needs to be done away with IMO. If there was any question before, the Civil War pretty much solidified how much power States can claim over the Federal Government. Taking their representation out of the Senate would be going way too far, though.

michigancat · « **Reply #47 on:** July 16, 2018, 12:42:07 PM »

Quote from: Spracne on July 15, 2018, 02:41:13 PM

I mean, our government was designed this way specifically to protect smaller states... That's been the whole point from the beginning. "The Senate problem" - wut??

What is the advantage to protecting the power of small states in modern times as opposed to redrawing state lines to forming states with larger populations and updated commonalities?

Also, places like the Central Valley of California are harmed way more than folks in Wyoming are helped IMO.

sys · « **Reply #48 on:** July 16, 2018, 12:49:08 PM »

Quote from: Kat Kid on July 16, 2018, 07:41:19 AM

People were worried Trump would win the popular vote?

not people that followed polls/models.

catastrophe · « **Reply #49 on:** July 16, 2018, 01:05:34 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on July 16, 2018, 12:42:07 PM

Quote from: Spracne on July 15, 2018, 02:41:13 PM
I mean, our government was designed this way specifically to protect smaller states... That's been the whole point from the beginning. "The Senate problem" - wut??

What is the advantage to protecting the power of small states in modern times as opposed to redrawing state lines to forming states with larger populations and updated commonalities?

These are two different questions, but I guess the real question is: if you favor drawing state lines based on population an common interest so that the Senate would reflect those characteristics, then what is the point of having a Senate at all?