US Gen. Election Thread FINALE - Votegeddon

[Conscentia]

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.

Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM

[Senkaku]

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.

Ah yes, because slutshaming Melania is a great way to express your frustration here.

[Kravanica]

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.

Ah yes, because slutshaming Melania is a great way to express your frustration here.

He's a real feminist and all that.

[Uxupox]

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.

Really a "Fuck Trophy"? Real mature man.

[Valrifell]

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.

Who would you say was the last "agricultural president"? The guy that really stuck up and supported farmers and rural folk day in and day out?

[Icelandium]

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.

In case of the choice between a half measure or a full measure, please place my vote for full democracy.
No more electoral college.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Rural areas, last I checked, are not "urbanized".

And it's not so much that urban voters would seek to fuck rural areas, is that urban areas would concentrate a lot more of the power under an abolished EC.

[Senkaku]

Ah yes, because slutshaming Melania is a great way to express your frustration here.

He's a real feminist and all that.

Even as someone who usually disagrees with you, I have to say, I find the whole "let's slutshame Melania for her husband's affairs/promiscuity and for her modeling career" abhorrent, not unlike the whole "let's shame Hillary for Bill's bullshit".

[Galloism]

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.

And that would help the problem, but it wouldn't fix the problem (Wyoming voters will still have over 3x the voting power of Californians). There's a problem with that notion, though.

Each state has the sole right for determining how the electors are apportioned, and it's very much a public action problem. Let's suppose Texas decided to go proportionate - it would be very very difficult for a Republican to win the white house in that scenario, and given Texas is majority republican, they don't want to hurt their chances (in this election, of 38 EVs, Trump would have gotten 20 and Hillary would have gotten 18).

Conversely, in California, if they went proportionate, it would be very very difficult for a democrat to win the white house in that scenario. Hillary would have gotten 34 EVs and Trump would have gotten 21 EVs.

The only way to do that would be to get everyone to agree to do that or pass a constitutional amendment requiring it.

[Hittanryan]

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.

I think the increasing divide between urban and rural is part of the blame for the polarization we're seeing. The federal government keeps pushing national legislation which only one or the other agrees with.

Gun control is one issue. In rural areas gun crime is low; crime in general is low because the population density is low. Rural voters don't see what the big deal is when urban voters voice concerns over gun crime because they are so far removed from them. They think they're being punished for something they haven't done, while not knowing what victims of gun crime have gone through.

Minority rights is another thing. Urban areas have more diversity by virtue of simply being densely populated economic hubs. Urban voters are more likely to get to know black, Latino, LGBT, etc. people, so they know they're just people. Rural areas have less diversity. There's a good chance they only know about minorities from what they see through the media. Our media is sensationalist; the loudest craziest voices get he most airtime.

[Socialist Nordia]

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.

I'm sorry, but the government shouldn't represent dirt, it should represent people. Regardless of if those people all live in one gigantic building on one plot of land, or if they live on millions of miles of farmland.

[Senkaku]

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.

Rural areas, last I checked, are not "urbanized".

But our society as a whole is extremely urbanized.

And it's not so much that urban voters would seek to fuck rural areas, is that urban areas would concentrate a lot more of the power under an abolished EC.

I fail to see what is wrong with concentrating power in areas with greater numbers of people in a democratic system, bullshit fearmongering and lies about mob rule notwithstanding.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

Ah yes, because slutshaming Melania is a great way to express your frustration here.

She's a dits with enough plastic in her to make lego jealous. Being FLOTUS doesn't magically exempt her from being seen as a vain twat.

[Ifreann]

Yes, that's a bad thing.

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

Having one office in your government filled by way of an electoral college does not mean that you're not a democracy. You elect your federal legislature. You elect your state legislatures. You elect your state executives. Some states have elected judiciaries, elected civil service positions, elected policing positions. How does all of that not count?

[Valaran]

[
I'm sorry, but the government shouldn't represent dirt, it should represent people. Regardless of if those people all live in one gigantic building on one plot of land, or if they live on millions of miles of farmland.

It should totally represent dirt.

Maybe some reeds too.

[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.

I think the increasing divide between urban and rural is part of the blame for the polarization we're seeing. The federal government keeps pushing national legislation which only one or the other agrees with.

Gun control is one issue. In rural areas gun crime is low; crime in general is low because the population density is low. Rural voters don't see what the big deal is when urban voters voice concerns over gun crime because they are so far removed from them. They think they're being punished for something they haven't done, while not knowing what victims of gun crime have gone through.

Minority rights is another thing. Urban areas have more diversity by virtue of simply being densely populated economic hubs. Urban voters are more likely to get to know black, Latino, LGBT, etc. people, so they know they're just people. Rural areas have less diversity. There's a good chance they only know about minorities from what they see through the media. Our media is sensationalist; the loudest craziest voices get he most airtime.

Hell, I've supported every Democrat since Bill (wow, never thought I'd say that, I guess), and I still think a lot of the gun control measures they propose are pretty stupid, and I've said so.

[Kravanica]

For the legislative branch. Not the executive branch.

Who would you say was the last "agricultural president"? The guy that really stuck up and supported farmers and rural folk day in and day out?

What does this matter?

[Lady Scylla]

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.

Rural areas, last I checked, are not "urbanized".

And it's not so much that urban voters would seek to fuck rural areas, is that urban areas would concentrate a lot more of the power under an abolished EC.

Half population is urban, half is not. How? Furthermore, not everyone in urban or rural votes the same way.

[Kravanica]

He's a real feminist and all that.

Even as someone who usually disagrees with you, I have to say, I find the whole "let's slutshame Melania for her husband's affairs/promiscuity and for her modeling career" abhorrent, not unlike the whole "let's shame Hillary for Bill's bullshit".

It's pathetic. They make it sound like she should be ashamed for having a great body.

[Valrifell]

Who would you say was the last "agricultural president"? The guy that really stuck up and supported farmers and rural folk day in and day out?

What does this matter?

The question is to further drive in the point "why do agricultural votes need to matter more if a president isn't going to fight for their issues anyway?"

[Uxupox]

Ah yes, because slutshaming Melania is a great way to express your frustration here.

She's a dits with enough plastic in her to make lego jealous. Being FLOTUS doesn't magically exempt her from being seen as a vain twat.

Why is she a ditz? Is it because she supposedly has plastic?

[Valaran]

I think the suburbs should form their own political bloc and outvote the others until everything looks like parts of Florida.

[Arlenton]

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.

I have no idea, I just think we should keep the EC (but if some states want to be like ME and NE that's alright too).

Thinking about it, even if the election were Jeb Bush vs Bernie Sanders, and Jeb won the popular vote but lost the electoral college to Bernie, I would still not want to get rid of the EC. Maybe I'm biased because my party fucks over the other every time this has happened, IDK.

But also, do you know how freaking boring election night would be sitting there watching two sets of numbers come in and see which one ends up being bigger? That would suck to watch. No more watching trends over the years, no more fun EC guessing, no more excitement when you party wins a "trophy states" (like Pennsylvania for Republicans in 2016 or Arizona for Democrats in 2024 maybe), etc.

[Gauthier]

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.

Really a "Fuck Trophy"? Real mature man.

Oh right, Trump had an affair with and married her for her intelligence, education and political views.

[Senkaku]

Ah yes, because slutshaming Melania is a great way to express your frustration here.

She's a dits with enough plastic in her to make lego jealous. Being FLOTUS doesn't magically exempt her from being seen as a vain twat.

Criticizing her is different from shaming her for the fact that she's a professional model. If having a kickass figure were how you made a living, you'd be half plastic too.