NationStates

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:37 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
Because 3+3+3>7.

There's more rural areas than there are cities. So even though they have less population density, they end up being greater.

This is of course only at the state level, the national level is different.

How is it different on the national level?

It's not just about populations, it's about States as well.

So there are big states with big populations, but there are more smaller states with small populations. So even though the big states may have a total population bigger than the total population of the smaller states, the smaller states can still override the big states because there are more of them.

Roughly half the population lives in just 9 states, the other half in the other 41.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:43 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:How is it different on the national level?

It's not just about populations, it's about States as well.

So there are big states with big populations, but there are more smaller states with small populations. So even though the big states may have a total population bigger than the total population of the smaller states, the smaller states can still override the big states because there are more of them.

Roughly half the population lives in just 9 states, the other half in the other 41.

So why would it not work to have a popular vote, and focus on swaying over rural voters instead of urban voters?

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:47 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
It's not just about populations, it's about States as well.

So there are big states with big populations, but there are more smaller states with small populations. So even though the big states may have a total population bigger than the total population of the smaller states, the smaller states can still override the big states because there are more of them.

Roughly half the population lives in just 9 states, the other half in the other 41.

So why would it not work to have a popular vote, and focus on swaying over rural voters instead of urban voters?

Because nationally, the rural voters dont add up to anything. Only the cities do.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:52 pm**

Thuzbekistan wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:So why would it not work to have a popular vote, and focus on swaying over rural voters instead of urban voters?

Because nationally, the rural voters dont add up to anything. Only the cities do.

I’m completely lost here

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:52 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
It's not just about populations, it's about States as well.

So there are big states with big populations, but there are more smaller states with small populations. So even though the big states may have a total population bigger than the total population of the smaller states, the smaller states can still override the big states because there are more of them.

Roughly half the population lives in just 9 states, the other half in the other 41.

So why would it not work to have a popular vote, and focus on swaying over rural voters instead of urban voters?

People in a given area are more likely to share the same interests than people in different areas, even if those different areas are similar. It's far easier to win individual votes by appealing to cities than to rural areas, and by extension, far easier to win individual votes by appealing to high population states than to low population states.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:59 pm**

Gran Virginia wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:So why would it not work to have a popular vote, and focus on swaying over rural voters instead of urban voters?

People in a given area are more likely to share the same interests than people in different areas, even if those different areas are similar. It's far easier to win individual votes by appealing to cities than to rural areas, and by extension, far easier to win individual votes by appealing to high population states than to low population states.

So why not focus on the high population states

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:04 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Gran Virginia wrote:People in a given area are more likely to share the same interests than people in different areas, even if those different areas are similar. It's far easier to win individual votes by appealing to cities than to rural areas, and by extension, far easier to win individual votes by appealing to high population states than to low population states.

So why not focus on the high population states

Because then you ignore half the country...

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:04 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Gran Virginia wrote:People in a given area are more likely to share the same interests than people in different areas, even if those different areas are similar. It's far easier to win individual votes by appealing to cities than to rural areas, and by extension, far easier to win individual votes by appealing to high population states than to low population states.

So why not focus on the high population states

This was answered by like 4 or 5 people, including me, a page or two ago. Domination of the greater number of less populated communities by the smaller number of more populated communities is bad.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:05 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:So why not focus on the high population states

Because then you ignore half the country...

Yeah but if you’re just trying to get elected

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:07 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
Because then you ignore half the country...

Yeah but if you’re just trying to get elected

That's the point. The EC requires that you appeal to more than just the biggest states, it reduces the disparity between big and little states, giving little states more say. It forces the candidates to coalition build, rather than just appeal to a singe albeit large demographic.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:07 pm**

Gran Virginia wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:So why not focus on the high population states

This was answered by like 4 or 5 people, including me, a page or two ago. Domination of the greater number of less populated communities by the smaller number of more populated communities is bad.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:07 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Yeah but if you’re just trying to get elected

That's the point. The EC requires that you appeal to more than just the biggest states, it reduces the disparity between big and little states, giving little states more say. It forces the candidates to coalition build, rather than just appeal to a singe albeit large demographic.

That’s what I’m asking how does the ex stop you from just focusing on high population states?

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:10 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
That's the point. The EC requires that you appeal to more than just the biggest states, it reduces the disparity between big and little states, giving little states more say. It forces the candidates to coalition build, rather than just appeal to a singe albeit large demographic.

That’s what I’m asking how does the ex stop you from just focusing on high population states?

By weighting things in favor of smaller states. Electors are not apportioned to states in pure population.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:14 pm**

Gran Virginia wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:That’s what I’m asking how does the ex stop you from just focusing on high population states?

By weighting things in favor of smaller states. Electors are not apportioned to states in pure population.

So smaller states have less votes, but also stronger votes? Or something?

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:15 pm**

The EC sounds tbh like the perfect recipe for creating rotten boroughs.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:15 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Telconi wrote:
Because that would devalue the votes of lower population states.

But why does that matter if everyone votes?

That's the key dispute. The EC gives voters in small states a more important vote than those in large states. (Most) democrats disagree with this because it underrepresents the people large states (which are more likely democrat) while (most) republicans argue this is good because it 'protects' the small states.

Democrats view it as undemocratic because it doesn't really represent the people's choice while republicans argue America isn't a democracy so who cares?

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:18 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Gran Virginia wrote:By weighting things in favor of smaller states. Electors are not apportioned to states in pure population.

So smaller states have less votes, but also stronger votes? Or something?

Smaller states have less votes, a higher ratio of electors to voters.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:20 pm**

Gran Virginia wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:So smaller states have less votes, but also stronger votes? Or something?

Smaller states have less votes, a higher ratio of electors to voters.

So aren’t smaller states still less important than bigger states?

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:21 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Gran Virginia wrote:By weighting things in favor of smaller states. Electors are not apportioned to states in pure population.

So smaller states have less votes, but also stronger votes? Or something?

Smaller states have less votes but much less people so the people there have more influence.

Imagine you live in a country with 6 states and a population of 150 people.

You live in a state with 100 people and 20 electoral college votes.

5 other states have 10 people and 5 electoral college votes each.

This means that if every person in your state votes for Candidate A, s/he will get 20 EC votes and if every person in the other states vote Candidate B, s/he gets 25 EC votes. This means candidate B wins with 25 EC votes to 20.

To democrats, this is unfair because it means 100 people were out voted by 50 due to geography. To republicans, this is fair because it means 5 states outvoted 1.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:23 pm**

Tarsonis wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:So why not focus on the high population states

Because then you ignore half the country...

That happens anyway. The EC means the entire election is decided in about 10 states at best. If you're Californian or Texan, you may as well not bother.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:23 pm**

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Gran Virginia wrote:Smaller states have less votes, a higher ratio of electors to voters.

So aren’t smaller states still less important than bigger states?

Individualy, yes, but it smoothes things out. This is helped by the fact that the two largest states (California and Texas) basically only vote one way for President, which reduces the need to campaign for them.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:24 pm**

Knask wrote:The National Enquirer's parent company has admitted to prosecutors that it made the $150,000 payment in "concert with" the Trump campaign in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election.

"AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

Media bias in favour of Trump. Typical.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:24 pm**

Maineiacs wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
afaiC, the international ranking of democracies can kiss our ass. The United States is not a democracy, it's a Federalist Republic.

I'm really getting tired of this meme the Right keeps rehashing that the fact that we're not a Direct Democracy means that we aren't any type of Democracy at all.

It makes sense if you accept they hate the notion of democracy.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:27 pm**

Tobleste wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
Because then you ignore half the country...

That happens anyway. The EC means the entire election is decided in about 10 states at best. If you're Californian or Texan, you may as well not bother.

The problem there is that California and Texas are stupidly big. Swing states change.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:32 pm**

Tobleste wrote:
Maineiacs wrote:

I'm really getting tired of this meme the Right keeps rehashing that the fact that we're not a Direct Democracy means that we aren't any type of Democracy at all.

It makes sense if you accept they hate the notion of democracy.

I do hate the idea of people in cities being able to dictate things to the rural minority with virtual impunity, yes.

NationStates

MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...