NationStates

New haven america wrote:

Pacomia wrote:Okay, so we learn you’re a Republican. Just a quick question, would you be supporting the EC if it suddenly turned around and started benefiting Democrats?

No, they would not.

Also, do they seriously believe the EC affects congressional elections? Because it doesn't, those are popular vote elections that have been gerrymandered.

Do you even read?

Kowani wrote:

Arlenton wrote:
1994 win
1996 loss
1998 loss
2000 win
2002 win
2004 win
2006 loss
2008 loss
2010 win
2012 loss
2014 win
2016 win
2018 loss (partial win because of the Senate, but for the sake of the argument I'll say a loss)

So nope. Since I've been around, the party I support has 7 wins and 6 losses.

Yeah, we’re talking about the EC. So, remove all those midterms.
Now, the EC has created precisely 5 minority Presidents. Discounting JQA because he wasn’t a Republican, you have: Rutherford B. Hayes (Beyond crappy, Benjamin Harrison (fucking useless), Bush Jr (Seriously, why do we keep getting bad candidates, and the current POTUS.

But no. Winning.

Should specify then. As far as I'm concerned, midterms are just important.

And I'd of totally voted for Tilden and Cleveland.

GlobalControl wrote: Replacing the system with popular vote doesn't actually give everyone fair representation, like it's supposed to, rather it hands power disproportionately to the Cities and more densely populated urban/sub-urban areas where they lean considerably more to one direction than the rural areas tend to, of which can be both red or blue/left or right. The majority of America, I.E. small towns, states with lower population densities overall like Minnesota, Nevada, etc. would be unable to actively compete with states like California, New York, Washington, Florida, Etc., and it would make it so that in order to win any presidential election a politician needs to only campaign within a select few areas as compared to spreading out to the rest of the country to actually try to sway the rest of it to their side and properly earn their vote.

Yeah, that’s what the Electoral College does. Seriously, how many people campaigned in Montana? Fucking nobody. But Pennsylvania? Oh, no, that got attention.

Kowani wrote:

GlobalControl wrote: Replacing the system with popular vote doesn't actually give everyone fair representation, like it's supposed to, rather it hands power disproportionately to the Cities and more densely populated urban/sub-urban areas where they lean considerably more to one direction than the rural areas tend to, of which can be both red or blue/left or right. The majority of America, I.E. small towns, states with lower population densities overall like Minnesota, Nevada, etc. would be unable to actively compete with states like California, New York, Washington, Florida, Etc., and it would make it so that in order to win any presidential election a politician needs to only campaign within a select few areas as compared to spreading out to the rest of the country to actually try to sway the rest of it to their side and properly earn their vote.

Yeah, that’s what the Electoral College does. Seriously, how many people campaigned in Montana? Fucking nobody. But Pennsylvania? Oh, no, that got attention.

I'm unsure how you feel about it, since it's hard to read tone through text, though I can pick up a bit of the sarcasm. I'm sort of dim so if it's obvious, well, call me dumb and all, but still.

Kowani wrote:

Arlenton wrote:
1994 win
1996 loss
1998 loss
2000 win
2002 win
2004 win
2006 loss
2008 loss
2010 win
2012 loss
2014 win
2016 win
2018 loss (partial win because of the Senate, but for the sake of the argument I'll say a loss)

So nope. Since I've been around, the party I support has 7 wins and 6 losses.

Yeah, we’re talking about the EC. So, remove all those midterms.
Now, the EC has created precisely 5 minority Presidents. Discounting JQA because he wasn’t a Republican, you have: Rutherford B. Hayes (Beyond crappy, Benjamin Harrison (fucking useless), Bush Jr (Seriously, why do we keep getting bad candidates, and the current POTUS.

But no. Winning.

You have called Benjamin Harrison useless.
Prepare to fucking die.

Arlenton wrote:

Kowani wrote:Yeah, we’re talking about the EC. So, remove all those midterms.
Now, the EC has created precisely 5 minority Presidents. Discounting JQA because he wasn’t a Republican, you have: Rutherford B. Hayes (Beyond crappy, Benjamin Harrison (fucking useless), Bush Jr (Seriously, why do we keep getting bad candidates, and the current POTUS.

But no. Winning.

Should specify then. As far as I'm concerned, midterms are just important.

“Should specify”
This thread has been about the EC, the conversation has been about the EC, you don’t win midterms with a minority vote...In what fucking way would you even bring that up?

>Your party is unpopular and bad and should change or they will never win the popular vote
>Also you should oppose the EC

?????

Kowani wrote:

Arlenton wrote:Should specify then. As far as I'm concerned, midterms are just important.

“Should specify”
This thread has been about the EC, the conversation has been about the EC, you don’t win midterms with a minority vote...In what fucking way would you even bring that up?

Because my party has in fact won more times than lost since I've been around. You said they did not, which is false.

GlobalControl wrote:

Kowani wrote:Yeah, that’s what the Electoral College does. Seriously, how many people campaigned in Montana? Fucking nobody. But Pennsylvania? Oh, no, that got attention.

I'm unsure how you feel about it, since it's hard to read tone through text, though I can pick up a bit of the sarcasm. I'm sort of dim so if it's obvious, well, call me dumb and all, but still.

Basically, that everything you accused the popular vote of doing, the Electoral College is culpable of.

Arlenton wrote:>Your party is unpopular and bad and should change or they will never win the popular vote
>Also you should oppose the EC

?????

Goddamnit, I just explained why it doesn’t help you.

GlobalControl wrote:

Bread Herbert wrote:The Electoral college is the system of electing the president of the United States of America.

In my opinion it is very undemocratic. The electoral college has lead to electing a president 4 times without the majority of the voters.
This site also shows how you can win the elections with 22% of the popular vote.
https://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/w ... ular-vote/

In my opinion the electoral college should be abolished and replaced by the popular vote the candidate with the most votes win.

NS , what is your opinion?

The idea behind the electoral college, and the electoral college itself, isn't undemocratic, and frankly, we are not a democracy, we're a Republic.
The purpose of the electoral college is to give fair representation, and that it does, to the less populous districts of the United States of America, of which would be rural counties, towns, and jurisdictions of which are not as powerful as major metropolitan and more densely populated regions of the United States.

Replacing the system with popular vote doesn't actually give everyone fair representation, like it's supposed to, rather it hands power disproportionately to the Cities and more densely populated urban/sub-urban areas where they lean considerably more to one direction than the rural areas tend to, of which can be both red or blue/left or right. The majority of America, I.E. small towns, states with lower population densities overall like Minnesota, Nevada, etc. would be unable to actively compete with states like California, New York, Washington, Florida, Etc., and it would make it so that in order to win any presidential election a politician needs to only campaign within a select few areas as compared to spreading out to the rest of the country to actually try to sway the rest of it to their side and properly earn their vote.

Unrelated, but I’m curious as to why Washington was included on there. A big chunk of the state is little podunks, very similar to Idaho or Montana. It’s really only Seattle that’s a big urban centre, and even Seattle isn’t some giant city. States like California and Florida (and arguably, Texas) are largely urban, with many cities and not much uninhabited land, but states like Washington, Colorado, and Minnesota have one large urban centre and otherwise a lot of land covered in small towns and uninhabited landscape. I don’t think you could put Washington into the same category as California or Florida. New York is similar, but upstate has some large cities too.

Arlenton wrote:

Kowani wrote:“Should specify”
This thread has been about the EC, the conversation has been about the EC, you don’t win midterms with a minority vote...In what fucking way would you even bring that up?

Because my party has in fact won more times than lost since I've been around. You said they did not, which is false.

I thought it was very clear we were talking about through the Electoral College.

Kowani wrote:

GlobalControl wrote:I'm unsure how you feel about it, since it's hard to read tone through text, though I can pick up a bit of the sarcasm. I'm sort of dim so if it's obvious, well, call me dumb and all, but still.

Basically, that everything you accused the popular vote of doing, the Electoral College is culpable of.

Arlenton wrote:>Your party is unpopular and bad and should change or they will never win the popular vote
>Also you should oppose the EC

?????

Goddamnit, I just explained why it doesn’t help you.

It does though, you specified two points in Arlenton's political awareness in which the President was his preferred candidate rather than not as a direct result of the EC.

Arlenton wrote:

Kowani wrote:“Should specify”
This thread has been about the EC, the conversation has been about the EC, you don’t win midterms with a minority vote...In what fucking way would you even bring that up?

Because my party has in fact won more times than lost since I've been around. You said they did not, which is false.

Going by actual presidential elections alone (the ones that use the electoral college), that’s false. It’s 3-3. And if you go further back in time, there’s even more Dem victories.

Kowani wrote:

GlobalControl wrote:I'm unsure how you feel about it, since it's hard to read tone through text, though I can pick up a bit of the sarcasm. I'm sort of dim so if it's obvious, well, call me dumb and all, but still.

Basically, that everything you accused the popular vote of doing, the Electoral College is culpable of.

Arlenton wrote:>Your party is unpopular and bad and should change or they will never win the popular vote
>Also you should oppose the EC

?????

Goddamnit, I just explained why it doesn’t help you.

..The EC doesn't help me? What

Pacomia wrote:

Arlenton wrote:Because my party has in fact won more times than lost since I've been around. You said they did not, which is false.

Going by actual presidential elections alone (the ones that use the electoral college), that’s false. It’s 3-3. And if you go further back in time, there’s even more Dem victories.

Don't forget about the Bush I, Reagan, and Nixon wins. And go back far enough and I may be on the Dem's side.

Telconi wrote:

Kowani wrote:Basically, that everything you accused the popular vote of doing, the Electoral College is culpable of.


Goddamnit, I just explained why it doesn’t help you.

It does though, you specified two points in Arlenton's political awareness in which the President was his preferred candidate rather than not as a direct result of the EC.

Yes. I also pointed out that all of those cases were bad to useless Presidents.

Rutherford B. Hayes-Literally everyone would’ve been better off if he hadn’t become president.
Benjamin Harrison-Just as useless as his Grandfather.
Bush Jr- Yeah, I don’t think I need to specify why this one sucked.
Trump-Are you tired of winning yet?

Now, one could also argue that the damage those men did to the GOP, especially Trump, really isn’t worth it.

Arlenton wrote:

Pacomia wrote:Going by actual presidential elections alone (the ones that use the electoral college), that’s false. It’s 3-3. And if you go further back in time, there’s even more Dem victories.

Don't forget about the Bush I, Reagan, and Nixon wins. And go back far enough and I may be on the Dem's side.

They also won the popular vote.

Kowani wrote:

GlobalControl wrote:I'm unsure how you feel about it, since it's hard to read tone through text, though I can pick up a bit of the sarcasm. I'm sort of dim so if it's obvious, well, call me dumb and all, but still.

Basically, that everything you accused the popular vote of doing, the Electoral College is culpable of.

Oh my. Well then, do care to explain how so?

I wouldn't find that to be the most likely thing, though I can certainly see how it happens.

However living in one of the states mentioned, I also have personal experience with the other.

I've lived in Nevada my entire life(well, almost entire, as I've lived in Tennessee and Texas for awhile too), and was raised in Northern Nevada in the Reno/Sparks area. Following the election, the electoral college of Nevada was swung to the Democratic Party by the city of Las Vegas, despite most of the states other districts having swung red/republican, including much of (But Not all of) Washoe County, Lyon, and other areas save for Washoe County itself and Las Vegas. The city of Las Vegas in this instance would have a disproportional amount of power due to the size of it, given it is the state's most populous region.

Here I see really an example of population density deciding the way the Nevadan vote swang, fitting into what I have to say about the power that metropolitian regions have over other more rural areas. Despite most fo the state's districts/counties going red, it took merely two densely populated areas swinging blue to entirely shift the votes to Hillary Clinton.

Pacomia wrote:

GlobalControl wrote:
The idea behind the electoral college, and the electoral college itself, isn't undemocratic, and frankly, we are not a democracy, we're a Republic.
The purpose of the electoral college is to give fair representation, and that it does, to the less populous districts of the United States of America, of which would be rural counties, towns, and jurisdictions of which are not as powerful as major metropolitan and more densely populated regions of the United States.

Replacing the system with popular vote doesn't actually give everyone fair representation, like it's supposed to, rather it hands power disproportionately to the Cities and more densely populated urban/sub-urban areas where they lean considerably more to one direction than the rural areas tend to, of which can be both red or blue/left or right. The majority of America, I.E. small towns, states with lower population densities overall like Minnesota, Nevada, etc. would be unable to actively compete with states like California, New York, Washington, Florida, Etc., and it would make it so that in order to win any presidential election a politician needs to only campaign within a select few areas as compared to spreading out to the rest of the country to actually try to sway the rest of it to their side and properly earn their vote.

Unrelated, but I’m curious as to why Washington was included on there. A big chunk of the state is little podunks, very similar to Idaho or Montana. It’s really only Seattle that’s a big urban centre, and even Seattle isn’t some giant city. States like California and Florida (and arguably, Texas) are largely urban, with many cities and not much uninhabited land, but states like Washington, Colorado, and Minnesota have one large urban centre and otherwise a lot of land covered in small towns and uninhabited landscape. I don’t think you could put Washington into the same category as California or Florida. New York is similar, but upstate has some large cities too.

Such is fair and accurate - I was probably(most likely really) reaching a little high(or rather low) with my grab at Washington, and some others could certainly fit in there. There are as well certainly exceptions to every rule, hence it can't be made to apply to everything, even if it is a generalization.

Still however I think that New York would be a fitting one for the list given the size of New York City itself and its amount of sway, though given that if there is no electoral college, all that is required is New York City in the case of New York as a state, to be swayed for it to be basically in the bag in that case.

Kowani wrote:

Telconi wrote:
It does though, you specified two points in Arlenton's political awareness in which the President was his preferred candidate rather than not as a direct result of the EC.

Yes. I also pointed out that all of those cases were bad to useless Presidents.

Rutherford B. Hayes-Literally everyone would’ve been better off if he hadn’t become president.
Benjamin Harrison-Just as useless as his Grandfather.
Bush Jr- Yeah, I don’t think I need to specify why this one sucked.
Trump-Are you tired of winning yet?

Now, one could also argue that the damage those men did to the GOP, especially Trump, really isn’t worth it.

I like Trump and Bush. They are definitely up there with Reagan, Polk, and Jackson.

Kowani wrote:

Arlenton wrote:Don't forget about the Bush I, Reagan, and Nixon wins. And go back far enough and I may be on the Dem's side.

They also won the popular vote.

They did. But a win without the popular vote is still a win.

GlobalControl wrote:

Kowani wrote:Basically, that everything you accused the popular vote of doing, the Electoral College is culpable of.

Oh my. Well then, do care to explain how so?

I wouldn't find that to be the most likely thing, though I can certainly see how it happens.

However living in one of the states mentioned, I also have personal experience with the other.

I've lived in Nevada my entire life(well, almost entire, as I've lived in Tennessee and Texas for awhile too), and was raised in Northern Nevada in the Reno/Sparks area. Following the election, the electoral college of Nevada was swung to the Democratic Party by the city of Las Vegas, despite most of the states other districts having swung red/republican, including much of (But Not all of) Washoe County, Lyon, and other areas save for Washoe County itself and Las Vegas. The city of Las Vegas in this instance would have a disproportional amount of power due to the size of it, given it is the state's most populous region.

Here I see really an example of population density deciding the way the Nevadan vote swang, fitting into what I have to say about the power that metropolitian regions have over other more rural areas. Despite most fo the state's districts/counties going red, it took merely two densely populated areas swinging blue to entirely shift the votes to Hillary Clinton.

Yes. This is the fault of the EC. Now, let’s imagine the same scenario, but without the EC. Now, all the red votes mean something. Not all of Nevada’s votes go to Hillary. The reason that cities have such a disproportionate influence is because of the EC, not in spite of it.

Arlenton wrote:

Kowani wrote:Yes. I also pointed out that all of those cases were bad to useless Presidents.

Rutherford B. Hayes-Literally everyone would’ve been better off if he hadn’t become president.
Benjamin Harrison-Just as useless as his Grandfather.
Bush Jr- Yeah, I don’t think I need to specify why this one sucked.
Trump-Are you tired of winning yet?

Now, one could also argue that the damage those men did to the GOP, especially Trump, really isn’t worth it.

I like Trump and Bush. They are definitely up there with Reagan, Polk, and Jackson.

Bush drove you into the Great Recession, Reagan created the largest deficit in US history, and Jackson was a genocidal maniac.

Kowani wrote:

Arlenton wrote:I like Trump and Bush. They are definitely up there with Reagan, Polk, and Jackson.

Bush drove you into the Great Recession, Reagan created the largest deficit in US history, and Jackson was a genocidal maniac.

Lad got elected because everyone was too scared to say no, change my mind.

Kowani wrote:

Telconi wrote:
It does though, you specified two points in Arlenton's political awareness in which the President was his preferred candidate rather than not as a direct result of the EC.

Yes. I also pointed out that all of those cases were bad to useless Presidents.

Rutherford B. Hayes-Literally everyone would’ve been better off if he hadn’t become president.
Benjamin Harrison-Just as useless as his Grandfather.
Bush Jr- Yeah, I don’t think I need to specify why this one sucked.
Trump-Are you tired of winning yet?

Now, one could also argue that the damage those men did to the GOP, especially Trump, really isn’t worth it.

You disliking them is a feature, not a bug.

If the 2016 election was decided by popular vote, my vote would have mattered ( I lived in IL at the time). But Trump would have lost.

So if I had to choose...

A) My vote doesn't matter, but Trump wins.

or

B) My vote actually matters! But Clinton wins and we now have a 6-3 liberal supreme court.

Hmmm.....