NATION

PASSWORD

Should the US switch to popular vote vs. electoral college?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should the U.S. switch to the popular vote and abandon the electoral college?

Yes
388
40%
No
413
42%
I don't care, I'm Canadian.
35
4%
The U.S. is too much of a burden on the world, make America British again.
144
15%
 
Total votes : 980

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12100
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:31 pm

Insaeldor wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Honestly, I think that's an even worse argument. You shouldn't have to rig the political system to that each side has a equal chance of winning. What then is the point of elections. Might as well just flip a coin.

So we should just have a Tyranny by majority a totally block a massive subsection of the population out of the electoral process? that's just as bad as the system we have now.


Wait what, how does popular vote, for president, make a tyranny of the majority? The senate, house, supreme court, bill of rights, and states would still all be around to protect the minority from being hurt by the majority. In a popular vote the republicans certainly wouldn't be "blocked" from winning the presidency, they just wouldn't be able o ignore California, just as Democrats would no longer be able to ignore Texas.

Chinese Peoples wrote:
That's absurd. Political parties that fewer people support do not deserve to be in government.

On the other hand, those "more rural conservative state[sic]" would certainly block political reform because it is in their interest to do so.


I mean if we had Hillary win like Trump did that wouldn't be the case. The simple fact is that as a culturally and politically diverse nation we need to at the very least give those without the political power to win election the ability to have an equal platform and ability to protect there own interests. It be completely unfair for the west coast and east coast to dominate the electoral process and institute politicians which represent their interest at the expense of the rural south and mid west. While that would be an impatience fact of life it would definitely help in creating a more cohesive democracy since the verious socio-political entities would be given equal opertunity to dictate policy. It's also a failsage to ensure one socio-political group doesn't have absolute authority over the other.

It's an attempt to avoid the issues we face now but reversed.


Good thing the house and senate exist. That way people who don't win the presidency still have a voice in the federal government. Good thing the bill of rights, and the judiciary still limit what the federal and state governments can and can't do so the minority don't get trampled on. Good thing the states still have a bunch of power within themselves so they can operate differently based on the differences of culture.

The popular vote wouldn't allow the one group to simply steam role everyone else. People need to stop pretending it will
Fact Book.
Helpful hints on combat vehicle terminology.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:26 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Insaeldor wrote:So we should just have a Tyranny by majority a totally block a massive subsection of the population out of the electoral process? that's just as bad as the system we have now.


Wait what, how does popular vote, for president, make a tyranny of the majority? The senate, house, supreme court, bill of rights, and states would still all be around to protect the minority from being hurt by the majority. In a popular vote the republicans certainly wouldn't be "blocked" from winning the presidency, they just wouldn't be able o ignore California, just as Democrats would no longer be able to ignore Texas.



I mean if we had Hillary win like Trump did that wouldn't be the case. The simple fact is that as a culturally and politically diverse nation we need to at the very least give those without the political power to win election the ability to have an equal platform and ability to protect there own interests. It be completely unfair for the west coast and east coast to dominate the electoral process and institute politicians which represent their interest at the expense of the rural south and mid west. While that would be an impatience fact of life it would definitely help in creating a more cohesive democracy since the verious socio-political entities would be given equal opertunity to dictate policy. It's also a failsage to ensure one socio-political group doesn't have absolute authority over the other.

It's an attempt to avoid the issues we face now but reversed.


Good thing the house and senate exist. That way people who don't win the presidency still have a voice in the federal government. Good thing the bill of rights, and the judiciary still limit what the federal and state governments can and can't do so the minority don't get trampled on. Good thing the states still have a bunch of power within themselves so they can operate differently based on the differences of culture.

The popular vote wouldn't allow the one group to simply steam role everyone else. People need to stop pretending it will

Thank you for being a voice of reason. With popular vote only. Texas would matter equally to California and those two states would matter equally to Florida and Pennsylvania. No county in any state would matter more than any other.

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69785
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Genivaria » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:45 pm

Insaeldor wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Honestly, I think that's an even worse argument. You shouldn't have to rig the political system to that each side has a equal chance of winning. What then is the point of elections. Might as well just flip a coin.

So we should just have a Tyranny by majority a totally block a massive subsection of the population out of the electoral process? that's just as bad as the system we have now.

Tyranny by majority? You are aware that the president isn't an elected dictator right?
We have a constitution and checks and balances.
Anarcho-Communist, Democratic Confederalist
"The Earth isn't dying, it's being killed. And those killing it have names and addresses." -Utah Phillips

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:46 pm

Genivaria wrote:
Insaeldor wrote:So we should just have a Tyranny by majority a totally block a massive subsection of the population out of the electoral process? that's just as bad as the system we have now.

Tyranny by majority? You are aware that the president isn't an elected dictator right?
We have a constitution and checks and balances.

A vote in Jefferson City matters more than mine don't you know?

User avatar
Proctopeo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12369
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Proctopeo » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:59 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Genivaria wrote:Tyranny by majority? You are aware that the president isn't an elected dictator right?
We have a constitution and checks and balances.

A vote in Jefferson City matters more than mine don't you know?

For senate seats, absolutely, because of how the senate works.
Arachno-anarchism || NO GODS NO MASTERS || Free NSG Odreria

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69785
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Genivaria » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:12 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
San Lumen wrote:A vote in Jefferson City matters more than mine don't you know?

For senate seats, absolutely, because of how the senate works.

We're not talking about the senate.
Anarcho-Communist, Democratic Confederalist
"The Earth isn't dying, it's being killed. And those killing it have names and addresses." -Utah Phillips

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:16 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
San Lumen wrote:A vote in Jefferson City matters more than mine don't you know?

For senate seats, absolutely, because of how the senate works.

And what if a Senate candidate won the most votes but lost because their opponent got more counties? Would you think that was fair?

User avatar
Proctopeo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12369
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Proctopeo » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:19 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:For senate seats, absolutely, because of how the senate works.

And what if a Senate candidate won the most votes but lost because their opponent got more counties? Would you think that was fair?

From a cursory one-minute Google search, it seems as if Senate seats are typically chosen by a plurality or majority of the popular vote. If counties are what counts, I would see it as fair if that were to happen.
Arachno-anarchism || NO GODS NO MASTERS || Free NSG Odreria

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:21 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
San Lumen wrote:And what if a Senate candidate won the most votes but lost because their opponent got more counties? Would you think that was fair?

From a cursory one-minute Google search, it seems as if Senate seats are typically chosen by a plurality or majority of the popular vote. If counties are what counts, I would see it as fair if that were to happen.

So you would think it was fair if someone got the most votes but lose because their opponent got more counties? How is that even remotely fair?

User avatar
Proctopeo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12369
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Proctopeo » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:23 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:From a cursory one-minute Google search, it seems as if Senate seats are typically chosen by a plurality or majority of the popular vote. If counties are what counts, I would see it as fair if that were to happen.

So you would think it was fair if someone got the most votes but lose because their opponent got more counties? How is that even remotely fair?

It's fair because it is how the system works. They weren't trying to win the popular vote, they were trying to win the most counties.
Arachno-anarchism || NO GODS NO MASTERS || Free NSG Odreria

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69785
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Genivaria » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:26 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
San Lumen wrote:And what if a Senate candidate won the most votes but lost because their opponent got more counties? Would you think that was fair?

From a cursory one-minute Google search, it seems as if Senate seats are typically chosen by a plurality or majority of the popular vote. If counties are what counts, I would see it as fair if that were to happen.

The only real issue there is the Gerrymandering (which isn't part of the system as it was created) which distorts the voting districts.
Anarcho-Communist, Democratic Confederalist
"The Earth isn't dying, it's being killed. And those killing it have names and addresses." -Utah Phillips

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:29 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
San Lumen wrote:So you would think it was fair if someone got the most votes but lose because their opponent got more counties? How is that even remotely fair?

It's fair because it is how the system works. They weren't trying to win the popular vote, they were trying to win the most counties.

Well its an unfair system and should be changed. The electoral college should have overturned the result and stopped Trump by party matters more than country to them.

User avatar
Proctopeo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12369
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Proctopeo » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:30 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:It's fair because it is how the system works. They weren't trying to win the popular vote, they were trying to win the most counties.

Well its an unfair system and should be changed. The electoral college should have overturned the result and stopped Trump by party matters more than country to them.

And you've returned to old territory. I don't have anything to say to this that hasn't been said at least twice already.
Arachno-anarchism || NO GODS NO MASTERS || Free NSG Odreria

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:34 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Well its an unfair system and should be changed. The electoral college should have overturned the result and stopped Trump by party matters more than country to them.

And you've returned to old territory. I don't have anything to say to this that hasn't been said at least twice already.

Its what should have been done

User avatar
Uxupox
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13447
Founded: Nov 13, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Uxupox » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:36 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:And you've returned to old territory. I don't have anything to say to this that hasn't been said at least twice already.

Its what should have been done


Is it for a second round of:
Image
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:37 pm

Uxupox wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Its what should have been done


Is it for a second round of:
Image

Thats not what would have happened

User avatar
Uxupox
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13447
Founded: Nov 13, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Uxupox » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:39 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Uxupox wrote:
Is it for a second round of:
Image

Thats not what would have happened


I don't know some of those states (Mind you I believe it was a combination of "state rights" and slavery) wanted separation from the union because they thought they were getting the schlong in "state rights". This is a similar situation unto where the EC overrides state count.
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:42 pm

Uxupox wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Thats not what would have happened


I don't know some of those states (Mind you I believe it was a combination of "state rights" and slavery) wanted separation from the union because they thought they were getting the schlong in "state rights". This is a similar situation unto where the EC overrides state count.

It would have been perfectly legal. Every vote should matter equally and we should just have popular vote only.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:43 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
San Lumen wrote:So you would think it was fair if someone got the most votes but lose because their opponent got more counties? How is that even remotely fair?

It's fair because it is how the system works. They weren't trying to win the popular vote, they were trying to win the most counties.


If the system said "only men could vote", would that be fair?
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:45 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:It's fair because it is how the system works. They weren't trying to win the popular vote, they were trying to win the most counties.


If the system said "only men could vote", would that be fair?

If it allowed a certain party to win then to some yes it would be fair. Just like my vote counting less because i don't live in a lily white rural county and have 1920s thinking

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69785
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Genivaria » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:45 pm

Uxupox wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Its what should have been done


Is it for a second round of:
Image

Democracy trumping Slaver Oligarchs?
Sign me up.

From the CSA side it was very much the rich man's war with slave owners getting exemptions from conscription the more slaves they owned.
Last edited by Genivaria on Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Anarcho-Communist, Democratic Confederalist
"The Earth isn't dying, it's being killed. And those killing it have names and addresses." -Utah Phillips

User avatar
Proctopeo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12369
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Proctopeo » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:46 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:It's fair because it is how the system works. They weren't trying to win the popular vote, they were trying to win the most counties.


If the system said "only men could vote", would that be fair?

Only certain people being allowed to vote != one form of victory being more important than the other.
So no, that wouldn't be fair, as they aren't the same thing.
Arachno-anarchism || NO GODS NO MASTERS || Free NSG Odreria

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:47 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
If the system said "only men could vote", would that be fair?

Only certain people being allowed to vote != one form of victory being more important than the other.
So no, that wouldn't be fair, as they aren't the same thing.


OK then, how about if it said that mens' votes counted for twice as much as womens' votes?
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:47 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
If the system said "only men could vote", would that be fair?

Only certain people being allowed to vote != one form of victory being more important than the other.
So no, that wouldn't be fair, as they aren't the same thing.

but a rural vote counting more than a urban one is fair?

User avatar
Uxupox
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13447
Founded: Nov 13, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Uxupox » Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:50 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Uxupox wrote:
I don't know some of those states (Mind you I believe it was a combination of "state rights" and slavery) wanted separation from the union because they thought they were getting the schlong in "state rights". This is a similar situation unto where the EC overrides state count.

It would have been perfectly legal. Every vote should matter equally and we should just have popular vote only.


Perfectly legal? As in lets just ignore what the state majority voted for and trample state rights?
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armsmania, Bemolian Lands, Beyaz Toros, Bradfordville, Cannot think of a name, Concejos Unidos, Elejamie, Fartsniffage, Hispida, Ifreann, Union of Nobelia, United Mercantile State of Lichtenstein

Advertisement

Remove ads