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

[Galloism]

Yeah winning the popular vote by three million and not getting elected is totally fair and democratic

75 percent of Nevada;s population is in Clark county and if you add Washoe its 90 percent. In a electoral college system 10 percent of the population would be deciding statewide elections and that is fair and democratic how?

The EC has functioned since Washington. One party has hardly dominated the entire thing.

Honestly, if we wanted the EC to function the way it was originally intended, we would unironically ban people from running for president. They could only run for the electoral college, and the electoral college would go by covered wagon fly to Washington and start looking at resumes and figure out who to hire for the job.

[San Lumen]

Yeah winning the popular vote by three million and not getting elected is totally fair and democratic

It sure is, see my edit as to why.

75 percent of Nevada;s population is in Clark county and if you add Washoe its 90 percent. In a electoral college system 10 percent of the population would be deciding statewide elections and that is fair and democratic how?

And as I said, it should really be left up to the states to decide if and how such a system would work.

I dont care what they campaigned on its not fair for land area to matter more than votes.

Such a system would almost certainly violate one man one vote for statewide elections and in my view the electoral college does the same thing.

[San Lumen]

The EC has functioned since Washington. One party has hardly dominated the entire thing.

Honestly, if we wanted the EC to function the way it was originally intended, we would unironically ban people from running for president. They could only run for the electoral college, and the electoral college would go by covered wagon fly to Washington and start looking at resumes and figure out who to hire for the job.

In some countries they do that. There is no election for President its chosen by electors such as in Georgia or India.

[Tarsonis]

It sure is, see my edit as to why.



And as I said, it should really be left up to the states to decide if and how such a system would work.

I dont care what they campaigned on its not fair for land area to matter more than votes.

It's perfectly fair, it's just not your definition of fair and better in the long run for the country.

Such a system would almost certainly violate one man one vote for statewide elections and in my view the electoral college does the same thing.

Cool story.

[Telconi]

It sure is, see my edit as to why.



And as I said, it should really be left up to the states to decide if and how such a system would work.

I dont care what they campaigned on its not fair for land area to matter more than votes.

Such a system would almost certainly violate one man one vote for statewide elections and in my view the electoral college does the same thing.

Electoral rules you dislike are not inherently unfair, you just dislike them.

[San Lumen]

I dont care what they campaigned on its not fair for land area to matter more than votes.

It's perfectly fair, it's just not your definition of fair and better in the long run for the country.

Such a system would almost certainly violate one man one vote for statewide elections and in my view the electoral college does the same thing.

Cool story.

No it isn fair. If its such a fair system why doesn't any other country use it?

Its not a cool story its fact. Land area should not matter more than votes.

[Tarsonis]

The EC has functioned since Washington. One party has hardly dominated the entire thing.

Honestly, if we wanted the EC to function the way it was originally intended, we would unironically ban people from running for president. They could only run for the electoral college, and the electoral college would go by covered wagon fly to Washington and start looking at resumes and figure out who to hire for the job.

Right, but it's hasn't really functioned that way since the advents of partisan politics, which happened pretty early on.

[San Lumen]

Honestly, if we wanted the EC to function the way it was originally intended, we would unironically ban people from running for president. They could only run for the electoral college, and the electoral college would go by covered wagon fly to Washington and start looking at resumes and figure out who to hire for the job.

Right, but it's hasn't really functioned that way since the advents of partisan politics, which happened pretty early on.

If it functioned the way it was intended the EC would have overturned the 2016 election.

[Tarsonis]

It's perfectly fair, it's just not your definition of fair and better in the long run for the country.



Cool story.

No it isn fair. If its such a fair system why doesn't any other country use it?

It doesn't matter. They're not us.

Its not a cool story its fact. Land area should not matter more than votes.

That's opinion actually. Your opinion.

[Tarsonis]

Right, but it's hasn't really functioned that way since the advents of partisan politics, which happened pretty early on.

If it functioned the way it was intended the EC would have overturned the 2016 election.

Speculation, but glad were back to the crux of the issue, your side lost and you're upset.

[Telconi]

It's perfectly fair, it's just not your definition of fair and better in the long run for the country.



Cool story.

No it isn fair. If its such a fair system why doesn't any other country use it?

Its not a cool story its fact. Land area should not matter more than votes.

Your opinions aren't facts, never have been, and never will be.

[San Lumen]

No it isn fair. If its such a fair system why doesn't any other country use it?

It doesn't matter. They're not us.

Its not a cool story its fact. Land area should not matter more than votes.

That's opinion actually. Your opinion.

it would be fair and democratic to you if the Republican won in this election?: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail ... eID=785127
A similar result will likely play out next year for governor.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Why should the people who pay most of the taxes not get most of the say in how those taxes are used?

With how unbalanced tax revenues are, giving people authority based on taxes paid is just a fancy way of bringing back feudalism.

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.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

No it isn fair. If its such a fair system why doesn't any other country use it?

Its not a cool story its fact. Land area should not matter more than votes.

Your opinions aren't facts, never have been, and never will be.

Congratulations, you have officially figured out what an opinion is.

[Galloism]

Honestly, if we wanted the EC to function the way it was originally intended, we would unironically ban people from running for president. They could only run for the electoral college, and the electoral college would go by covered wagon fly to Washington and start looking at resumes and figure out who to hire for the job.

Right, but it's hasn't really functioned that way since the advents of partisan politics, which happened pretty early on.

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

[Tarsonis]

It doesn't matter. They're not us.



That's opinion actually. Your opinion.

it would be fair and democratic to you if the Republican won in this election?: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail ... eID=785127
A similar result will likely play out next year for governor.

Sure it would.

[Telconi]

With how unbalanced tax revenues are, giving people authority based on taxes paid is just a fancy way of bringing back feudalism.

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?

[San Lumen]

it would be fair and democratic to you if the Republican won in this election?: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail ... eID=785127
A similar result will likely play out next year for governor.

Sure it would.

How would it be fair? They got less votes.

[Telconi]

Your opinions aren't facts, never have been, and never will be.

Congratulations, you have officially figured out what an opinion is.

Little late to the party homeslice.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

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?

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.

[Valrifell]

The EC has functioned since Washington. One party has hardly dominated the entire thing.

Honestly, if we wanted the EC to function the way it was originally intended, we would unironically ban people from running for president. They could only run for the electoral college, and the electoral college would go by covered wagon fly to Washington and start looking at resumes and figure out who to hire for the job.

If we wanted it to behave has the Founders expected then they each vote for the candidate their state fielded, tossing the election to the House everytime, with people actually winning the EC exceedingly rare.

[Tarsonis]

Right, but it's hasn't really functioned that way since the advents of partisan politics, which happened pretty early on.

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.

[Valrifell]

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.

I think he advocated for a directorial democracy, which tbh I'm here for.

[San Lumen]

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.

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

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Congratulations, you have officially figured out what an opinion is.

Little late to the party homeslice.

I can't tell if this was a piss-poor attempt at an insult or you taking pride in having a basic human understanding of how opinions work.