US Gen. Election Thread FINALE - Votegeddon

[Galloism]

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.

This is proven wrong by reality. We just watched - again - the swing areas getting a disproportionate say over everyone.

Even if you hand waive away the swing state problem, which you shouldn't, we just watched rural areas get a disproportionate say over urban areas. Any time you have a severe urban/rural split, in a binary choice, one will get a say over the other.

If you abolish the EC, it would be proportionate. More voters override less.

If you leave the EC, its disproportionate. Less voters have a disproportionate say over what happens in urban areas.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Urban areas would have disproportionate amounts of power.

For instance, here in Texas, our urban areas carried Clinton with an almost surprising narrow margin even though she lost the state.

Now, considering urban areas vote democrat, she would only need a few more counties in order to beat Trump, and these would come from the small cities.

Let that sink in.

[Valaran]

Personally, its not so much that the electoral college has its flaws or not. I think its intention is fine, and as flawed system go, the US has ones that are in more pressing need of reform (ahem, gerrymandering). Nevertheless, perhaps EC reform is needed.

However, what I am mildly, uh, sceptical about is the timings of these complaints. Maybe you've (figurative you) always had a long-standing grievance with the EC, but I feel like these grievances were only being voiced whenever Clinton seemed like she would lose the EC, while winning the popular vote, and that they were only being voiced en masse after that actually occurred. This doesn't make the criticisms any less valid by themselves, mind, but the timing undermines the validity of making this argument.

[Gauthier]

So their's a petition now to have the electors make Clinton President. It has over 2.4 million signatures.

I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, Trump would be a terrible President, it would be legal (though some states have rules against it), and it would be in keeping with the popular vote result. On the other hand, it would go against the results of the states' votes, and set a very bad precedent of electors disregarding the results en mass.

It would also likely lead to a violent response from some Trump supporters, though fear of terrorism should not dictate our actions.

At best, it would be a case of "right outcome, wrong methods", though it certainly speaks to the level of opposition to Trump.

Ok on one hand yes. On the other hand, No.

Trump won't be that bad he isn't getting rid of Obama care, Gay marriage is still legal, and Abortion is still legal.

Also, there will be no throwing of anyone into any camps.

His webpage brought back the Muslim Ban. Flip. Flop.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

Urban areas would have disproportionate amounts of power.

For instance, here in Texas, our urban areas carried Clinton with an almost surprising narrow margin even though she lost the state.

Now, considering urban areas vote democrat, she would only need a few more counties in order to beat Trump, and these would come from the small cities.

Let that sink in.

ECs should be done by population and no winner takes all.

[Arlenton]

Again, the USA is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY.

Yes, that's a bad thing.

Not really. If we were a democracy, Hillary would be president.

[Kravanica]

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?

Whoa, that's one big straw man!

[Galloism]

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.

Urban areas would have disproportionate amounts of power.

For instance, here in Texas, our urban areas carried Clinton with an almost surprising narrow margin even though she lost the state.

Now, considering urban areas vote democrat, she would only need a few more counties in order to beat Trump, and these would come from the small cities.

Let that sink in.

Maybe since I live in a rural county in Arkansas, I should get three times the vote power of someone who lives in Little Rock or Fayetteville or West Memphis when voting for governor. I wouldn't want the votes of city people to be disproportionate.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

This is proven wrong by reality. We just watched - again - the swing areas getting a disproportionate say over everyone.

Even if you hand waive away the swing state problem, which you shouldn't, we just watched rural areas get a disproportionate say over urban areas. Any time you have a severe urban/rural split, in a binary choice, one will get a say over the other.

If you abolish the EC, it would be proportionate. More voters override less.

If you leave the EC, its disproportionate. Less voters have a disproportionate say over what happens in urban areas.

And urban areas would run the show.

You keep saying they won't. The math in this election simply proves you wrong.

[Valrifell]

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

Whoa, that's one big straw man!

I'm saying there are other ways for the rural areas to have influence and a say, that's the point of the Senate, after all.

[Galloism]

This is proven wrong by reality. We just watched - again - the swing areas getting a disproportionate say over everyone.

Even if you hand waive away the swing state problem, which you shouldn't, we just watched rural areas get a disproportionate say over urban areas. Any time you have a severe urban/rural split, in a binary choice, one will get a say over the other.

If you abolish the EC, it would be proportionate. More voters override less.

If you leave the EC, its disproportionate. Less voters have a disproportionate say over what happens in urban areas.

And urban areas would run the show.

You keep saying they won't. The math in this election simply proves you wrong.

The math proves the EC is broken. It effectively disenfranchises 80% of American voters.

[Lady Scylla]

This is proven wrong by reality. We just watched - again - the swing areas getting a disproportionate say over everyone.

Even if you hand waive away the swing state problem, which you shouldn't, we just watched rural areas get a disproportionate say over urban areas. Any time you have a severe urban/rural split, in a binary choice, one will get a say over the other.

If you abolish the EC, it would be proportionate. More voters override less.

If you leave the EC, its disproportionate. Less voters have a disproportionate say over what happens in urban areas.

And urban areas would run the show.

You keep saying they won't. The math in this election simply proves you wrong.

If half the country lives in cities, and the other half is rural, how's that unfair? If you look above, I pointed out the problem.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Urban areas would have disproportionate amounts of power.

For instance, here in Texas, our urban areas carried Clinton with an almost surprising narrow margin even though she lost the state.

Now, considering urban areas vote democrat, she would only need a few more counties in order to beat Trump, and these would come from the small cities.

Let that sink in.

ECs should be done by population and no winner takes all.

I agree, winner-takes-all should be abolished for a more district-based system like what Nebraska and Maine have.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And urban areas would run the show.

You keep saying they won't. The math in this election simply proves you wrong.

The math proves the EC is broken. It effectively disenfranchises 80% of American voters.

And again, that is not the problem of the EC. That is a problem of partisanship.

[Senkaku]

Oh come the fuck on people. On the bizarre chance that the electoral college votes in Hillary, how do you think that's going to pan out for the country?

Better than it will pan out if they give it to Trump, imo.

Probably not, really, and I expect she'd recognize that and decline it.

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?

We've always updated the distribution of EVs through the years. Why is this any different? Updating based on census data to give minorities more of a say really is not that different.

The reason we don't get rid of the EC is because it's not practical to do, and I don't support partisan-driven efforts to ditch it, but if you're defending it, don't make up bullshit lies to do so.

[Galloism]

The math proves the EC is broken. It effectively disenfranchises 80% of American voters.

And again, that is not the problem of the EC. That is a problem of partisanship.

The partisanship problem is exacerbated by the EC. There's no point in fighting for Arkansas or California or New York presidentially precisely because of the EC.

[Valaran]

As to the rural urban vote divide thing - you're either absolutely with the view that all votes should have equal power or you're not.

Thus, if you're with the 'rural votes shouldn't be dominated by urban ones mindset' then you're not with the view that all votes have an equal say, as the correction of this perceived imbalance would be to give rural votes extra weighting. Not that it is a wrong position (I actually am partial to this view), but I feel like you should recognise the fact that you believe some votes should get disproportional weighting (conceptually in a corrective function), and rationalise it from that perspective.

Note that my point here isn't related to discussions of the EC - I saw some general comments that rural voters should be given more say.

[Gauthier]

Oh god, I just gagged at the idea of us following Trump with a rapper and a freaking Kardashian in the white house. That'd be 100% proof America has gone to ridiculous lows.

I would not mind a Kardashian as a First Lady, to be honest.

A second consecutive First Lady who has "Being a fuck trophy" on her resumé and whose most notable accomplishments is showing off her body for a living. Yeeeeeeah.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And again, that is not the problem of the EC. That is a problem of partisanship.

The partisanship problem is exacerbated by the EC. There's no point in fighting for Arkansas or California or New York presidentially precisely because of the EC.

It is, but then again, you have Scylla's idea to make the EC proportionate, which is a better idea than abolishing it altogether.

[Valaran]

And again, that is not the problem of the EC. That is a problem of partisanship.

The partisanship problem is exacerbated by the EC. There's no point in fighting for Arkansas or California or New York presidentially precisely because of the EC.

That's not entirely true - you can fight on the demographic front *nods*

[Arlenton]

ECs should be done by population and no winner takes all.

I agree, winner-takes-all should be abolished for a more district-based system like what Nebraska and Maine have.

You do know that if all states did what Nebraska and Maine did, Republicans would win every single time right? Like I'm pretty sure McCain would have won in 2008 if this was the practice.

That being said I''m all for it.

[Socialist Nordia]

I would not mind a Kardashian as a First Lady, to be honest.

A second consecutive First Lady who has "Being a fuck trophy" on her resumé and whose most notable accomplishments is showing off her body for a living. Yeeeeeeah.

If we're lucky, Melania might copy everything Michelle did as First Lady.

[Senkaku]

The math proves the EC is broken. It effectively disenfranchises 80% of American voters.

And again, that is not the problem of the EC. That is a problem of partisanship.

There are voters on both sides in every state. The EC essentially means the votes of the losing side are irrelevant.

Also- I'm confused as to why, in an urbanized, post-industrial era where our agriculture is mechanized and we import and export food to and from distant lands, we continue with the whole fanciful bullshit about rural areas needing to be represented more than cities, and also why we assume urban voters would seek to fuck them over or why their local governments would prove incapable of protecting them.
If you're so afraid of the people from the Capitol oppressing the Districts or whatever, why not re-organize the entire system of states? Urban areas can become state-level entities, and rural areas can become their own things.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I agree, winner-takes-all should be abolished for a more district-based system like what Nebraska and Maine have.

You do know that if all states did what Nebraska and Maine did, Republicans would win every single time right? Like I'm pretty sure McCain would have won in 2008 if this was the practice.

That being said I''m all for it.

That's because you're partisan

Being serious though, abolishing the EC would cause the rural-urban divide get deeper, and with the EC the urban-rural divide is still there, but it's not overwhelmingly serious.

So, what would be a good solution to ensure each and every vote is equal? Because with one you only have to campaign in maybe 10% of the land in order to win, and with the other you just have to deal with the issue of partisanship.

[Kravanica]

Whoa, that's one big straw man!

I'm saying there are other ways for the rural areas to have influence and a say, that's the point of the Senate, after all.

For the legislative branch. Not the executive branch.