Stop trolling. Jacky and Mr Jacky are covering their points.
-
𝐸𝓇𝒾𝒸𝒶𝑅𝑒𝓃𝑒—𝒫𝓇𝒾𝒸𝑒
— 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:03 PM)I’m someone who supports some of the arguments on both sides because I believe a candidate should have trans-regional appeal but the population arguments for the Electoral college aren’t supported by anything resembling Mathematics.
If you don’t want to get buried in every election by popular vote just say THAT. Don’t whine about big cities.
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon -
-
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:17 PM)
That was relevant back when the EC was created, but far less so now. Everyone has access to the same technologies and the same information. I've lived all over the country from big cities to towns so small, you have to drive an hour to the next big town get to the closest hardware store. The EC is completely irrelevant at this point and serves only as a safety net for Republican candidates when they almost always inevitably lose the popular vote.
The idea of the Federal Republic is right, but the US does not execute it properly. Power is decentralized from the capitol, sure, but power is also being taken from most Americans and given to a smaller sub-group. There is no "equal authority between the 50 states" when some states have voters that get to say, "Nuh uh! My vote counts as four of yours!" The EC maintains that.
I don't think anyone said anything about fear of us city folk, but rather fear of losing because of an outdated and unpopular platform.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 05:04 PM)
Well, Jacky Ms Thaaang
did say "But…but…California…New York City…." That implies the issue is some undue bias against urbanites. That's not the point.
Theoretically, if you oppose the electoral college because it gives extra clout to the less populous states, you would also have to do away with the U.S. Senate. There a giant like California has 2 Senators and a little guy like Delaware also has 2 Senators. If you're consistent you would advocate abolition of the U.S. Senate as well and replace it with one large Assembly as is done in more centralized republics. But again, the underlying basis is federalism. It diffuses power.
All the electoral college does is take the number of Representatives in the House, a completely democratic assembly, and add 2 points for the number of Senators from each state. This gives a slight edge to protect the power of smaller states.
Straight democracy worked in a tiny city state like Athens. In the U.S. it would just be the tyranny of the majority.
The whole system is a federal one, both executive and legislative. Would you do away with the Senate as well?
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 05:40 PM)
I took from the "But…but…California…New York City…." not a bias against city-dwellers, but rather as bias that there's just so many more of them and they're typically left-leaning. It's not a bias against them for living in the city, it's a bias against them having a different political opinion and their number being far greater than a rural area with the same geographical size.
I would also agree that the Senate is unfairly represented in terms of federal decisions. Do I think it needs to be done away with? No, of course not. It's a vital part of our checks and balances system to prevent the POTUS from becoming a dictator, but it needs updating in the worst way to more fairly represent the population of the states.
I know how the EC works. I just completely disagree with it. 4:1 voting power in the case of Wyoming:California is not a "slight edge". it's highway robbery of the power of an entire sub-population to have a say in who represents them and the majority of the population. This goes both ways. Why should the fact that certain areas of California that are right-leaning have their votes nullified because more districts in California are left-leaning? The EC effectively mutes millions of voters each election cycle to the point where a Republican in California might as well not bother to vote nor a Democrat in Texas. With the EC gone, every single vote is counted.
I disagree. There would be no tyranny thanks to states' rights. I stand completely behind states' rights except in the cases of universally understood human rights. Those should be handled by the federal government.
As previously stated, no, I would not do away with the Senate, but I would love to see it more fairly represented and to include rules that don't allow people like Mitch McConnell to simply not allow a bill to be voted on/debated.
On a side note, for fun, it would be really interesting to speculate about the Senate's demise and allowing the people vote directly on legislation drawn up by the House.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977. -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 06:20 PM)
I'm categorically against straight democracy. Theoretically it leads to mob rule. The majority may say we don't like same-sex marriage. Or it may say we want undocumented workers deported. So? The mob cannot be allowed to override the rights of a minority. I shudder to think what would happen if we had a straight democratic vote which overrode any other consideration.
I'm an admirer of Marx so this is not redbaiting. But democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's not what our current system is about.
It's also important to note that rarely in history has the popular vote not reached the same final end as the electoral vote. It happened in 2016. But when consideration is made for all those voters who don't turn out to the polls, it's rather negligible in the bigger picture. Aggressive voter turnout is also a factor which may mean the actual vote does not exactly reflect the will of people, but only the organization of various interest groups. In a large diverse country straight-up democracy is virtually impossible.
I agree that inalienable rights are not subject to a vote and must be protected by the federal government over the rights of the states.
My bottom line is that the electoral college acknowledges we are a union of 50 states. As I have stated, the majority is often wrong. It doesn't bother me that to preserve federalism and state's rights, that my vote in California is not equal to the vote of some yokel in Kentucky. Guaranteed rights protect me regardless.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Chase — 5 years ago(August 14, 2020 04:05 PM)
Exactly! The last time a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote was George W. Bush in 2004. Before that, it was 1988 with Bush Sr. If the platform/candidate is unwanted by the majority of the population, they shouldn't be sworn in.
Proudly offering too-close encounters since 1977.
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 