posted by majorsparkYou do realize Abraham Lincoln won less than 40% of the popular vote. Nearly 48% of democrats voted against Lincoln. If we had some sort of run off system to achieve a majority of the popular vote it is more than likely Abraham Lincoln would not have become president. The electoral college which geeblock insinuates is based in the preservation of slavery allowed the election of the man that led the end of it.
What do you expect from a guy that is afraid of a hat?
posted by geeblockBy all means please educate me on how important it is in 2019 and not just a way for southern states to protect slavery. I’ll accept just educate me on why we need it in 2019. Also I thought u were for states rights?
You lost all credibility when you tied the EC in with slavery. They have and had zero to do with each other.
Please please please mention the 3/5ths compromise...
posted by O-TrapFunctionally, a popular vote makes most states irrelevant. A dominating control of a dozen or so of the largest cities in the US would be all it would theoretically take to win an election.
The electoral college ensures that the entire country is theoretically relevant (as relevant as a state can be if they're essentially locked in as either red or blue). Without it, you've essentially got ten or so regions that would dictate everything.
Don't get me wrong. I certainly recognize that the electoral college is a flawed system. There have indeed been a few close elections in which the person elected did not win the popular vote. However, opting instead for a popular vote election institutes what amounts to a regional oligarchy with regard to leaders at the federal level, with the larger metropolitan areas being the only real determiners. Stumping candidates would only address the problems or issues that are important to those areas.
Geographically speaking, the vast, vast majority of the country would be mostly useless in the election, and as such, would mostly go unheard and unconsidered, election after election.
If one wanted to address the problem(s) with the electoral college, I'd argue that the best way to do so would be to revamp the electoral college. Not to get rid of it.
I’m not necessarily stumping to get rid of it.. many years it doesn’t even come into play. In the grand scheme of things I don’t think it matters who wins at this point. Whoever gets elected just undoes what the other party just passed. They then spend the next few years arguing and then we start over again. This is what I mean when I say it doesn’t really matter which way we do it. Of course it would have changed a few winners here and there but in the grand scheme of things I don’t think it changes that much. But I’m also ok with a popular vote. I’m fine with one person and one vote.
posted by supermanWhat do you expect from a guy that is afraid of a hat?
Lol nah not afraid at all.
posted by geeblockI’m not necessarily stumping to get rid of it.. many years it doesn’t even come into play. In the grand scheme of things I don’t think it matters who wins at this point. Whoever gets elected just undoes what the other party just passed. They then spend the next few years arguing and then we start over again. This is what I mean when I say it doesn’t really matter which way we do it. Of course it would have changed a few winners here and there but in the grand scheme of things I don’t think it changes that much. But I’m also ok with a popular vote. I’m fine with one person and one vote.
Yeah, I get that you didn't necessarily come out and petition for the removal of it. I just figured I'd contribute to teasing out the problem it solves ... a problem that would exist with a popular vote model.
I'm ultimately not "okay" with either one in the sense that I acknowledge both have problems. However, whatever problems arise from the Electoral College are, I would argue, both less impactful and less frequent. Under a one-voter-one-vote model, anyone who wishes for their vote to actually matter is fucked unless they live in California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, or Florida.
18% of the states carry about 50% of the voter-age public. So guess whose problems will be addressed on the campaign trail. Not Montana's. Not Nevada's. Not Washington's. Not Utah's, or North Carolina's. Those states can, in so many words, go fuck themselves when it comes to a popular vote model. They're just not relevant enough for the candidates to neglect the more densely populated states to campaign there.
Now, of course, you want votes from the 82% of the states that make up the other half of the voting public, but you're not going to fight for them at the risk of losing ground in a key state (or region even, since states don't actually matter in a popular vote model). Gaining ground in BFE, North Dakota isn't going to be worth potentially losing ground in Atlanta, Austin, or Chicago.
And that will essentially be the case every election, without exception.
But then, I'd prefer an almost completely absentee, night watchman government, anyway, and I loathe both the Democratic Party and the GOP as a result, so maybe my view is tainted on the whole thing.
posted by iclfan2They're insane. Kamala and Pocahontas also said they would be for adding supreme court seats. They want Trump to win again.
I'm not under any delusion that Republicans wouldn't be calling for the same thing if it benefited them. That's why gerrymandering exists... to benefit your side. And both sides will do whatever it takes to benefit their side the most. If Republicans were winning popular votes and losing elections they'd be screaming the same thing.
What's going to be interesting is to see what the Republican play is if young Democrats keep leaving New York and populating the Columbuses and Raleighs and Pittsburghs of the world in swing states and turn them blue.
posted by kizer permanenteI'm not under any delusion that Republicans wouldn't be calling for the same thing if it benefited them. That's why gerrymandering exists... to benefit your side. And both sides will do whatever it takes to benefit their side the most. If Republicans were winning popular votes and losing elections they'd be screaming the same thing.
What's going to be interesting is to see what the Republican play is if young Democrats keep leaving New York and populating the Columbuses and Raleighs and Pittsburghs of the world in swing states and turn them blue.
I don't think they would and if they did it would be just as disgraceful as the dems crying for it now. This is nothing new though as FDR tried the same thing. Gerrymandering vs stacking justices in addition to the 9 we have now isn't even close to the same thing. The dems also benefit form gerrymandering, don't kid yourself and pretend they don't do it either. The modern SCOTUS has already been too political. Adding more justices would pretty much make the SCOTUS useless. What would stop the party in charge from adding more to counteract the last additions?
I swear, some of you like to act like this shit is absolute. Shit like this might sound like a good idea for liberals now, but it can easily blow up in their faces in 10-20 years. Your point about liberals escaping idiotic progressive states is a good one, but so is the fact that conservatives are having kids at a much higher rate than liberals. This shouldn't surprise anybody as one side of the aisle values families a lot more than the other. These kids will eventually be voting. There is a reason our founding fathers put these checks and balances in place. Despite being nearly 250 years ago, they continue to prove they are smarter than somebody like gblock, who has the technology and access in his pocket to google "democratic republic."
The political map will continue to change as it has done for the entire history of this country. There is no reason for knee jerk rule changes. If anything, as otrap said, the EC should be revamped, not abolished.
Edit: Btw, you gotta love the irony of liberals escaping their tax heavy progressive states to vote for the same policy in their new states. You can't fix stupid.
Also, anyone here that is legitimately ok with the rest of the country deciding your state's votes I challenge you to get out of Ohio more. Travel to the east and west. I have spent significant time on both sides of the country, especially the east. After you get a dose of what most of these smug assholes think about Ohio, I would be interested to see if you would be ok with them deciding your vote.
posted by jmogYou lost all credibility when you tied the EC in with slavery.
The tie is that if one is for pure democracy, and racism has made a comeback to the degree some claim it has, that person needs to be OK with a return to slavery if 50.000001% of the populace would vote for it.
posted by queencitybuckeyeThe tie is that if one is for pure democracy, and racism has made a comeback to the degree some claim it has, that person needs to be OK with a return to slavery if 50.000001% of the populace would vote for it.
That’s not what he meant
Lol Pocahontas now says she backs reparations. Gtfo.
posted by iclfan2Lol Pocahontas now says she backs reparations. Gtfo.
For native Americans, or Afro-Americans, or both? Or, for taxpayers who have been screwed over by BIG government for the last 3 decades?
posted by QuakerOatsFor native Americans, or Afro-Americans, or both? Or, for taxpayers who have been screwed over by BIG government for the last 3 decades?
For 'her' people......
posted by iclfan2Lol Pocahontas now says she backs reparations. Gtfo.
I do too.
If anyone can prove they are a descendent of slaves, we will take them to the African country of their choice and drop them off. Leaving them where they would have been if not for the evil white man.
posted by supermanI do too.
If anyone can prove they are a descendent of slaves, we will take them to the African country of their choice and drop them off. Leaving them where they would have been if not for the evil white man.
This is a terrible take
posted by supermanI do too.
If anyone can prove they are a descendent of slaves, we will take them to the African country of their choice and drop them off. Leaving them where they would have been if not for the evil white man.
Neg’d
posted by supermanI do too.
If anyone can prove they are a descendent of slaves, we will take them to the African country of their choice and drop them off. Leaving them where they would have been if not for the evil white man.
justifying slavery is never a good look lol
you might as well have said "you're welcome we enslaved you"
This forum, man.
posted by kizer permanentejustifying slavery is never a good look lol
you might as well have said "you're welcome we enslaved you"
So whose fault was it, the dealers or the users; the sellers or the buyers? And was the war on slavery won (by the majority of Americans for the benefit of the enslaved)? And was the cost of freedom, approximately three quarters of a million lives lost, insufficient reparations?
cognitive disonance is a hell of a thing
