2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

[Telconi]

What if there's a way, perhaps some sort of system, where as we have TWO houses of the legislature, and a hybrid election of the executive, that allows both sides to have a say?

I can't tell if you're advocating for status quo or advocating for the only possible democratic system more byzantine than the one we've already got.

How does this describe the status quo?

[San Lumen]

Yes, the EC never really functioned as intended. It was an utter failure.

I wouldn't call it a failure. While yes the idea of sagely elders hand picking the next executive didn't last long, it's adapted form is till quite effective.

Perhaps its time then to go to strictly popular vote like the rest of the world

[Valrifell]

Yes, the EC never really functioned as intended. It was an utter failure.

I wouldn't call it a failure. While yes the idea of sagely elders hand picking the next executive didn't last long, it's adapted form is till quite effective.

In what sense? Only five (or so) Presidents won without the popular vote out of 45 so it's not got the best record of representing the little guy and sticking it to the majority.

[Tarsonis]

Sure it would.

How would it be fair? They got less votes.

Because their region is more populous does not mean it should get to dictate to the rest of the state. 51% dictating to the 49%. But with an electoral system that 51% would be checked and the democrats would have to actually campaign outside Seattle.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I can't tell if you're advocating for status quo or advocating for the only possible democratic system more byzantine than the one we've already got.

How does this describe the status quo?

Because I couldn't tell if you were talking about having a bicameral system at every level of government or you were just talking about one at the top level. "Most byzantine possible system" it is.

[Telconi]

I can't tell if you're advocating for status quo or advocating for the only possible democratic system more byzantine than the one we've already got.

keep in mind this is someone who doesnt believe in free and fair elections, the peaceful transfer of power and supported the law in Wisconsin limiting the power of Governor Tony Evers

And you don't believe Gavin Newsom deserves to rot in a prison for the rest of his days. So maybe don't throw stones.

[Valrifell]

I can't tell if you're advocating for status quo or advocating for the only possible democratic system more byzantine than the one we've already got.

How does this describe the status quo?

We already two houses in Congress famalam

[San Lumen]

How would it be fair? They got less votes.

Because their region is more populous does not mean it should get to dictate to the rest of the state. 51% dictating to the 49%. But with an electoral system that 51% would be checked and the democrats would have to actually campaign outside Seattle.

A democrat is not going to win those counties in central Washington. The Republican would almost always win statewide office

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I wouldn't call it a failure. While yes the idea of sagely elders hand picking the next executive didn't last long, it's adapted form is till quite effective.

In what sense? Only five (or so) Presidents won without the popular vote out of 45 so it's not got the best record of representing the little guy and sticking it to the majority.

The only way to really stick it to the majority is to elect the guy who got the least votes, who's with me here?

[Telconi]

How does this describe the status quo?

We already two houses in Congress famalam

Since the subject is state politics, the United states Congress is entirely irrelevant.

[Tarsonis]

I wouldn't call it a failure. While yes the idea of sagely elders hand picking the next executive didn't last long, it's adapted form is till quite effective.

In what sense? Only five (or so) Presidents won without the popular vote out of 45 so it's not got the best record of representing the little guy and sticking it to the majority.

But it the possibility exists. Hillary Clinton would have won in a monumental landslide if she had paid just a little bit attention to the issues concerning the rust belt. But she didn't and here we are.

[Valrifell]

How would it be fair? They got less votes.

Because their region is more populous does not mean it should get to dictate to the rest of the state. 51% dictating to the 49%. But with an electoral system that 51% would be checked and the democrats would have to actually campaign outside Seattle.

It's sad that you actually believe this when the 50 state strategy isn't even that far away in terms of electoral history.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's kind of why I'm not saying that people should have authority based on taxes paid, but rather saying that we shouldn't let small sectors of the population who contribute very little compared to urban centers have more say in the political process than large communities.
This is the reason why we have the House of Representatives: small states like Rhode Island should have a say in the political process, but less of one than much larger states like Texas and California.

This already happens.

California and Texas are the two states with the most EC votes of all (California has 55 and Texas has 38). By sheer state population size, Democrats usually win the big states, which have large amount of leverage on the EC by amount of votes allocated. Problem is, they lose a bunch of small areas. Even if you were to put it on a county-by-county basis and weigh them accordingly, there are far more small counties that vote red while the city/urban counties are small gulfs within those states. So, yes, the urban areas have a lot of the pull in sheer numbers, but it's picked apart by the sheer number of non-urban counties.

[Tarsonis]

Because their region is more populous does not mean it should get to dictate to the rest of the state. 51% dictating to the 49%. But with an electoral system that 51% would be checked and the democrats would have to actually campaign outside Seattle.

A democrat is not going to win those counties in central Washington. The Republican would almost always win statewide office

Well the democrats should then ask themselves why they allowed their politics to get so polarized and decisive that they can't make inroads on any of those counties.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

keep in mind this is someone who doesnt believe in free and fair elections, the peaceful transfer of power and supported the law in Wisconsin limiting the power of Governor Tony Evers

And you don't believe Gavin Newsom deserves to rot in a prison for the rest of his days. So maybe don't throw stones.

What exactly did he do other than be a Democrat?

[San Lumen]

Because their region is more populous does not mean it should get to dictate to the rest of the state. 51% dictating to the 49%. But with an electoral system that 51% would be checked and the democrats would have to actually campaign outside Seattle.

It's sad that you actually believe this when the 50 state strategy isn't even that far away in terms of electoral history.

Democrats did a 50 state strategy in 2018 and it paid off. They will likely do the same in 2020.

[San Lumen]

A democrat is not going to win those counties in central Washington. The Republican would almost always win statewide office

Well the democrats should then ask themselves why they allowed their politics to get so polarized and decisive that they can't make inroads on any of those counties.

Or maybe we could just elect based on who gets the most votes and not rig the election?

[Telconi]

And you don't believe Gavin Newsom deserves to rot in a prison for the rest of his days. So maybe don't throw stones.

What exactly did he do other than be a Democrat?

Nothing really.

[Telconi]

Well the democrats should then ask themselves why they allowed their politics to get so polarized and decisive that they can't make inroads on any of those counties.

Or maybe we could just elect based on who gets the most votes and not rig the election?

That sounds terrible.

[Valrifell]

In what sense? Only five (or so) Presidents won without the popular vote out of 45 so it's not got the best record of representing the little guy and sticking it to the majority.

But it the possibility exists. Hillary Clinton would have won in a monumental landslide if she had paid just a little bit attention to the issues concerning the rust belt. But she didn't and here we are.

It wouldn't have been a landslide, really. And the issues surrounding her loss are a smidge more complicated than "she's dumb lol and didn't try and help labor or working men"

[Tarsonis]

Because their region is more populous does not mean it should get to dictate to the rest of the state. 51% dictating to the 49%. But with an electoral system that 51% would be checked and the democrats would have to actually campaign outside Seattle.

It's sad that you actually believe this when the 50 state strategy isn't even that far away in terms of electoral history.

Oh no a dismissive comment, what ever will I do.

[Valrifell]

A democrat is not going to win those counties in central Washington. The Republican would almost always win statewide office

Well the democrats should then ask themselves why they allowed their politics to get so polarized and decisive that they can't make inroads on any of those counties.

Howard Dean stopped being the DNC Chair and the Tea Party made a killing pandering to the """economic anxieties""" under Obama.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's kind of why I'm not saying that people should have authority based on taxes paid, but rather saying that we shouldn't let small sectors of the population who contribute very little compared to urban centers have more say in the political process than large communities.
This is the reason why we have the House of Representatives: small states like Rhode Island should have a say in the political process, but less of one than much larger states like Texas and California.

Besides, feudalism was all about letting those with land control everything, so giving people authority based on their land area also sounds like a fancy way of bringing back feudalism.

What if there's a way, perhaps some sort of system, where as we have TWO houses of the legislature, and a hybrid election of the executive, that allows both sides to have a say?

By a hybrid election of the executive I assume you mean voting for president/vice president or governor/lt. governor separately instead of using the ticket system?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

What exactly did he do other than be a Democrat?

Nothing really.

I figured there might be a reason you hate him, but if "he's part of the opposition" is good enough for you, I don't see why it shouldn't be good enough for me.

[Telconi]

What if there's a way, perhaps some sort of system, where as we have TWO houses of the legislature, and a hybrid election of the executive, that allows both sides to have a say?

By a hybrid election of the executive I assume you mean voting for president/vice president or governor/lt. governor separately instead of using the ticket system?

No, a system that weighed both administrative divisions and population, like the federal Electoral College.