US Gen. Election Thread FINALE - Votegeddon

[Socialist Nordia]

wat

This is why I own guns.

To defend yourself from evil people who live in cities and want democracy. *nod*

[Washington Resistance Army]

This is why I own guns.

To defend yourself from evil people who live in cities and want democracy. *nod*

Or from people who want to abolish the constitution, lol

That's why you buggers should all divide your electoral votes like we do. Then the result would both be more representative, but balanced for population, and make more states more important.

That would help, and it would be a good step, but it still leaves us with the absurd math result that Wyoming votes worth over 3 1/2 times a California vote.

I'm curious where those numbers come from, care to elaborate?

[G-Tech Corporation]

This is why I own guns.

To defend yourself from evil people who live in cities and want democracy. *nod*

I live in a city, actually. But that doesn't mean I don't while away my days cleaning my shotgun on my porch and watching out for dastardly Constitution-abolishers.

[Galloism]

The problem is that the EC is what makes those states not matter.

Trump carried Arkansas by 26 points. Let's suppose Hillary tried to court the state, and she cut Trump's lead by 20 points. Does it matter? Why or why not?

If we abolished the electoral college, would it matter? Why or why not?

Why would she care about the population of Arkansas if she already has proven, by a COUNTY breakdown, that only the cities matter?

She won the popular vote in heavily urbanized counties. Rural counties overwhelmingly voted Trump.

Because the top 100 cities are only 20% of the population.

It's not enough, except with the electoral college (theoretically).

[Pirelin]

This is why I own guns.

To defend yourself from evil people who live in cities and want democracy. *nod*

Or maybe from people who want to remove the cornerstone of American democracy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

''The USA is a Republic, not Democracy''#
And? Does it change the fact that the meaning behind the word ''Republic'' is, *ahem* a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Does it change the fact that today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable?
Does it change the fact that the EC makes the USA a tyranny of the minority?

I disagree with that definition, myself. Since said definition is a modern definition by some political scientist 300 years ago.

The EC makes the US not a tyranny of the minority. A tyranny of the minority would be by abolishing the EC because then only urbanized areas would matter. Rural areas would not matter at all.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why would she care about the population of Arkansas if she already has proven, by a COUNTY breakdown, that only the cities matter?

She won the popular vote in heavily urbanized counties. Rural counties overwhelmingly voted Trump.

Because the top 100 cities are only 20% of the population.

It's not enough, except with the electoral college (theoretically).

Again, the county breakdown map during this election proves you blatantly wrong. Urban areas voted blue, while rural areas voted red.

Anyone who wants to have a chance at the presidency in a democracy in this country without the EC would only have to focus on urban folks.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's why you buggers should all divide your electoral votes like we do. Then the result would both be more representative, but balanced for population, and make more states more important.

That would help, and it would be a good step, but it still leaves us with the absurd math result that Wyoming votes worth over 3 1/2 times a California vote.

Does it matter that they are worth more?

[Rhodesialund]

So all of this talk of wanting Trump's victory to be taken away by the electoral college in December, wouldn't that just be a big 'fuck you' to democracy? I mean sure, Trump didn't get the most people, but got the most states, which is how the electoral college is suppose to work, IIRC.

I mean even people who opppose Trump should know how fucked up this desire is...

I doubt it would change anything. Donald J. Trump is president, as confirmed on November 10th. On November 10th, Hillary Clinton has admitted to millions on live national TV that she conceded. It's like Cleveland at the world series forfeiting at the top of the 7th inning. There's no take-backsies, no "Oh it was just a joke," no nothing. At this point, it's an empty action. It won't change anything other than give Anti-Trump folks a little pat on the back thinking they did something, when in reality it was nothing at all. It's wasted time and effort. Focus on the future instead.

My advice to left-leaning folks who vote democrat. Your party is in shambles, you need to clean your house out. Don't be a centrist like Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, or the sort. Don't say to me that Hillary Clinton is not one of them, this entire election season has done nothing but proven it. Her email scandals, the John Podesta leaks, Wikileaks, everything. The leaked voice recording of Hillary saying she has a private and public opinion. You need someone who truly does divulge from the establishment. You need someone who truly does believe in what they are pushing for. You need someone who doesn't agree with the whole aspect of cheating and using the system to your own ends.

Despite that being said, please for the love of God do not put in Bernie Sanders in 2020. He didn't just shoot himself in the foot, he dropped a grenade at his feet and did nothing with how his actions were during this election season. He was ineffective and pretty much betrayed his followers. He has outed himself as a career politician. Start at the grassroots, and then move up. Get someone like a Democrat state senator or representative who is new to the entirety of the system. Get someone who does truly believe in their ideals and isn't willing to sell out to special interests like Hillary. If Bernie is put into the 2020 race against quite possibly Trump going for a second term, he will lose miserably.

Don't take my advice if you like, but I'm just a Right-leaning person trying to help you save face and win. If I were the head of the Democrat party, I would reorganize the entire structure and give the corrupt officials like Donna Brazile, Debbie W. Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, and the sort a massive boot to the butt. The party needs a fresh face with fresh people, not those of the same mold. On top of that, I wouldn't try to compete in 2020, with how the tradition of first termers always getting their second term. Instead I would focus more on 2024, where there's a real chance of victory. You have eight years, starting now, to prepare for another campaign you could win massively.

Also gonna drop this video here. Listen to it, despite how much you might hate it. Pay attention, and fix the problems that the party has been blind to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

This is going to be my last post in this thread. Take my advice, or not. You want to win, you listen and get to work. The naysayers might hop in and disagree. Those are people who lost this election, a heavily stacked election at that, to one man who fought the entire system and came out on top.

[Galloism]

Because the top 100 cities are only 20% of the population.

It's not enough, except with the electoral college (theoretically).

Again, the county breakdown map during this election proves you blatantly wrong. Urban areas voted blue, while rural areas voted red.

Yes. They did. Which means we have given more representation to rural areas than urban ones. We have said rural people are more important and get more say than urban ones. This is an anathema to the concept of equal representation.

[Galloism]

To defend yourself from evil people who live in cities and want democracy. *nod*

Or from people who want to abolish the constitution, lol

That would help, and it would be a good step, but it still leaves us with the absurd math result that Wyoming votes worth over 3 1/2 times a California vote.

I'm curious where those numbers come from, care to elaborate?

Which is a result of the system not being updated to reflect population changes. That's bad management of the system, not a problem with the system itself.

No, actually it's a result of a deliberate over-representation in lower population states. It's working as designed.

The lowest number of EVs a state can have is 3. Those states are Alaska, Delaware, DC (not a state, but has 3 EVs), Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming. This is because each state has the equivalent for two senators and a representative for the EC.

The state with the highest EVs is California, which has 55.

Now, as of the last census, which is upon which the EV split is based, California had a population of 37,254,503. Wyoming, which is the lowest population state (even smaller than DC) had a population of 563,767. Now, you may notice, properly, if you're a math guy, that California's population is over 66 times higher than Wyoming, but it only has 55 electoral votes to Wyoming's 3.

This is because wyoming is so small (population wise), if you did the math exactly, it wouldn't even have representative in the house of representatives, but they always get one. They also get two senators. (This is not wrong - in fact, it's fine.)

California gets two senators, and 53 representatives.

If you do the math again (I used Idaho before, but that doesn't capture the full effect of the electoral college) you'll find this, using the last census numbers upon which the EC is based:

California: 37,254,503 / 55 = 677,355 people per electoral vote (rounded)

Wyoming: 563,767 / 3 = 187,922 people per electoral vote (rounded)

Yep, if you live in Wyoming, your vote is worth 3.6 times what it is in California (if one disregards the notion of Swing states and safe states, which complicates things further)

This is not an aberration. It specifically and repeatedly gives more influence to rural states than urban ones as a function of population. It's designed to give extra influence to the rural voter compared to the urban one.

(I did take the most extreme example between Wyoming and California - it literally doesn't get more disparate than this)

[Socialist Nordia]

To defend yourself from evil people who live in cities and want democracy. *nod*

Or from people who want to abolish the constitution, lol

That would help, and it would be a good step, but it still leaves us with the absurd math result that Wyoming votes worth over 3 1/2 times a California vote.

I'm curious where those numbers come from, care to elaborate?

It's not like I want dictatorial rule, I just want more of a representative democracy.

600,000 people in Wyoming/ 3 electoral votes= 1 electoral vote for every 200,000 people

39,000,000 people in California/ 55 electoral votes= 1 electoral vote for every 700,000 people

[Valrifell]

Because the top 100 cities are only 20% of the population.

It's not enough, except with the electoral college (theoretically).

Again, the county breakdown map during this election proves you blatantly wrong. Urban areas voted blue, while rural areas voted red.

As they tend to do? I mean, under the Electoral College, the only thing getting gone is the over-gratification of Florida. We don't really want that, do we?

[Galloism]

That would help, and it would be a good step, but it still leaves us with the absurd math result that Wyoming votes worth over 3 1/2 times a California vote.

Does it matter that they are worth more?

Only if you think equal representation, i.e., one man one vote, is an important democratic concept.

If you think a small group of unelected people who should have more political power than everyone else, I guess it's fine. I find that awful, but whatever.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Again, the county breakdown map during this election proves you blatantly wrong. Urban areas voted blue, while rural areas voted red.

Yes. They did. Which means we have given more representation to rural areas than urban ones. We have said rural people are more important and get more say than urban ones. This is an anathema to the concept of equal representation.

No, it isn't.

Because abolishing the EC would mean that urban areas get a disproportionate say over what happens in the rural areas.

The Electoral College is not perfect at this stage, no, but it is a hell of a lot better at representing everyone's interests equally than abolishing it.

[Novsvacro]

Of the whole point is to keep rural folks from being dominated by those in urban areas, why not do the same thing with other divides? Rural/urban isn't the only major divide in America. Why not do the same with race? Our electoral system is dominated by white people, us being a majority. Why not make it so that black votes are worth more than white votes? Isn't there value in diluting democracy so that not only white peoples get a say in democracy? That would be a horrible system though. Just as horrible as our current one.

Also, the "you're just buthurt" defence isn't going to get you out of having to actually listen to my arguments.

Because there is non-discriminatory value in ensuring the resource base and land area of the country are accounted for, not merely her warm bodies. By dint of natural distribution, rural areas will always and inexorably have less clout in the popular vote. That's axiomatic, and the reason the electoral college was established in the Constitution. How would your proposed "let Xminority have more clout" work out? Do we update how much each person's vote is worth based on census data? Is it determined individually? What about black lawyers and professionals? What happens in forty years when people of Hispanic descent outnumber Caucasians? Sorry, that rationale is just bad, and you should feel bad. The electoral college is designed as it is because of a need to ensure exactly the same thing as the Senate- population not being the sole determinant of political clout.

Until such time as you abolish the Senate, and the electoral college, and the constitution, you can sit down.

Why are you implying that to discard the EC would mean getting rid of the whole Constitution as well?

[Bakery Hill]

Does it really matter whether the EC system is right or wrong? We can argue about that forever. If you abolished it now, or had large group of faithless electors voting Clinton, what would be the actual consequences on the ground?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Or from people who want to abolish the constitution, lol



I'm curious where those numbers come from, care to elaborate?

It's not like I want dictatorial rule, I just want more of a representative democracy.

600,000 people in Wyoming/ 3 electoral votes= 1 electoral vote for every 200,000 people

39,000,000 people in California/ 55 electoral votes= 1 electoral vote for every 700,000 people

Sure, I'm right there with you, I've wanted to get rid of the electoral college for as long as I've cared about politics but that doesn't mean we need to scrap the entire constitution.

Snip

Huh, interesting. I'm already against the college myself but that just further highlights the problems with it.

[Icelandium]

And don't pretend you understand the reason for the electoral college, either.

I understand. I just value the will of the people over the will of states. If democracy means Wyoming gets a say that's actually proportional to their population instead of a disproportionately large say, then so be it.

But isn't it true that the founding fathers created electors? As Farn pointed out a few days ago, the courts have determined the unbound electors in 25 states may vote their conscience. That also can be perceived as a provision of protection.

These problems have surfaced before. A state can also send in more than one set of electoral votes to muddy the waters. An 1887 law holds that if states send in multiple conflicting sets of electoral college votes, Congress gets to vote on which ones to recognize. Our current GOP congress would clearly choose for Trump. Therefore, this faithless elector hope is going nowhere.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Again, the county breakdown map during this election proves you blatantly wrong. Urban areas voted blue, while rural areas voted red.

As they tend to do? I mean, under the Electoral College, the only thing getting gone is the over-gratification of Florida. We don't really want that, do we?

That's because Florida is a bipartisan state, or a swing state as it is called.

Other states are not this, they are very much partisan. Texas is a major partisan example in which no money is spent for campaigning here by Republicans. They already know they hold this state.

[Socialist Nordia]

Yes. They did. Which means we have given more representation to rural areas than urban ones. We have said rural people are more important and get more say than urban ones. This is an anathema to the concept of equal representation.

No, it isn't.

Because abolishing the EC would mean that urban areas get a disproportionate say over what happens in the rural areas.

The Electoral College is not perfect at this stage, no, but it is a hell of a lot better at representing everyone's interests equally than abolishing it.

Because that would be awful if we had *gasp* equality of representation

Any say urban areas would get would be proportional. The current system is disproportionate, artificially giving more power to rural voters.

[Lady Scylla]

55.6% of eligible voters voted. That's 126,622,225 people.

60,034,250 voted for Trump.

60,319,493 voted for Hillary.

4,099,040 voted for Johnson

1,224,066 voted for Stein

Trump got 279 EC, Hillary got 228 EC. There was no silent majority, half voted for Hillary, Half for Trump. Roughly 1/4 of the country's eligible voters via EC elected our President.

[Gauthier]

On other election notes, Minnesota elected the first Somali-American legislator. She was a refugee, too.

And I get this black comedy scenario of Trump calling for her disqualification and deportation.

[Kravanica]

Yes. They did. Which means we have given more representation to rural areas than urban ones. We have said rural people are more important and get more say than urban ones. This is an anathema to the concept of equal representation.

No, it isn't.

Because abolishing the EC would mean that urban areas get a disproportionate say over what happens in the rural areas.

The Electoral College is not perfect at this stage, no, but it is a hell of a lot better at representing everyone's interests equally than abolishing it.

If we abolish the EC we'd basically have urban areas running everything and those in rural areas would have no say whatsoever. But that's okay because "muh will of the people" or something like that.

[Valrifell]

No, it isn't.

Because abolishing the EC would mean that urban areas get a disproportionate say over what happens in the rural areas.

The Electoral College is not perfect at this stage, no, but it is a hell of a lot better at representing everyone's interests equally than abolishing it.

If we abolish the EC we'd basically have urban areas running everything and those in rural areas would have no say whatsoever. But that's okay because "muh will of the people" or something like that.

So I guess the President is the supreme dictator for life and our God-Emperor, then?