Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Spirit of Hope]

Not sure what you are asking. Metropolitan areas are "a geographical region with a relatively high population density at its core and close economic ties throughout the area." Obviously portions of this area are going to be heavily urban, however parts of these areas could be suburban or even rural.

Indeed, and since nobody but you has mentioned metropolitan areas, why are they important?

Because they are a great measure of where people are concentrated geographically.

Not sure what you are asking. Metropolitan areas are "a geographical region with a relatively high population density at its core and close economic ties throughout the area." Obviously portions of this area are going to be heavily urban, however parts of these areas could be suburban or even rural.

So you're saying that under the popular vote it'd all be about chasing the metro vote instead of the swing vote?

Sounds like my same point.

1) It means they would be chasing after more people, not just the population of the swing states. So the total population being enticed increases.
2) Most people are pretty set in how they vote, and that includes most people in metro areas. So just going to metro areas probably isn't going to win you the election, you are going to have to look at how you can reach out to rural areas.

Why should ten percent of the population control statewide offices in a state like Nevada? How is that fair or democratic? Those counties are too red for any democrat to win

So why should the areas too blue for any Republican to win control statewide offices?

The area doesn't control the election, the democrats who happen to win there do. If you want to win state wide office you don't have to worry about area, but about total people voting. If you can't convince enough blue people to vote for you in a heavy blue state you are going to loose. Area has nothing to do with it. If you have a problem with this you have a problem with elections.

[The Lone Alliance]

Why, are you saying the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd be unable to to do anything to win over rural voters?

Why should ten percent of the population control statewide offices in a state like Nevada? How is that fair or democratic? Those counties are too red for any democrat to win

What is it with your obsession with Nevada?

[Telconi]

Indeed, and since nobody but you has mentioned metropolitan areas, why are they important?

Because they are a great measure of where people are concentrated geographically.

So you're saying that under the popular vote it'd all be about chasing the metro vote instead of the swing vote?

Sounds like my same point.

1) It means they would be chasing after more people, not just the population of the swing states. So the total population being enticed increases.
2) Most people are pretty set in how they vote, and that includes most people in metro areas. So just going to metro areas probably isn't going to win you the election, you are going to have to look at how you can reach out to rural areas.

So why should the areas too blue for any Republican to win control statewide offices?

The area doesn't control the election, the democrats who happen to win there do. If you want to win state wide office you don't have to worry about area, but about total people voting. If you can't convince enough blue people to vote for you in a heavy blue state you are going to loose. Area has nothing to do with it. If you have a problem with this you have a problem with elections.

I've specifically stated I have a problem with elections, so acting like this is some hot take is a tad foolish, yes?

[Tornado Queendom]

If the same party wins elections, the other party can eventually get BANNED. If the Republicans (of which I am part of) get banned, I'm probably going to move to Hungary.

The only parties that have been banned are the American Communist Party, at the hands of conservatives. You're just making shit up.

This WILL lead to a downward spiral, which WILL eventually grow in craziness until America is a one-party state ruled by the Democrats.

[The Emerald Legion]

Great idea. We should do that. I would fucking love having an actual voice in how my state is run.

Dirt should matter more than votes?

it would be fair to you if the republican won this election despite only getting 36 percent of the vote? This is the Governor election in New York last year https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail ... eID=810000

Or if the republican won this election in Nevada? The two counties the Democrat won are about 85 percent of the population of the state: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail ... eID=822591

Under such a system it would effectively be a rigged election with the minority always controlling statewide offices

Honestly votes don't really matter to me at all. Quite frankly, I don't think we should be making new laws at all.

[Kowani]

The only parties that have been banned are the American Communist Party, at the hands of conservatives. You're just making shit up.

This WILL lead to a downward spiral, which WILL eventually grow in craziness until America is a one-party state ruled by the Democrats.

https://xkcd.com/605/

[Tornado Queendom]

This WILL lead to a downward spiral, which WILL eventually grow in craziness until America is a one-party state ruled by the Democrats.

https://xkcd.com/605/

That xkcd comic can be used against you
You think that Climate Change is gonna destroy our planet by 2030
Of course, that myth can be explained by that exact comic.

[Kowani]

https://xkcd.com/605/

That xkcd comic can be used against you
You think that Climate Change is gonna destroy our planet by 2030
Of course, that myth can be explained by that exact comic.

I see you missed the point of the comic.

[Tornado Queendom]

That xkcd comic can be used against you
You think that Climate Change is gonna destroy our planet by 2030
Of course, that myth can be explained by that exact comic.

I see you missed the point of the comic.

No, I actually understood the point of the comic.

[Kowani]

I see you missed the point of the comic.

No, I actually understood the point of the comic.

So, yeah, you missed the point of the comic.

[Tornado Queendom]

No, I actually understood the point of the comic.

So, yeah, you missed the point of the comic.

How is using your own arguments against you "missing the point?" If I'm missing the point, I'm wondering what the point even IS.

[Kowani]

So, yeah, you missed the point of the comic.

How is using your own arguments against you "missing the point?" If I'm missing the point, I'm wondering what the point even IS.

The point was that much like a marriage, the banning of the communist party is a singular event with little indication that it will happen again.

Hurricanes are…really not comparable.

[Tornado Queendom]

How is using your own arguments against you "missing the point?" If I'm missing the point, I'm wondering what the point even IS.

The point was that much like a marriage, the banning of the communist party is a singular event with little indication that it will happen again.

Hurricanes are…really not comparable.

Just because there's no indication now doesn't mean that the left wouldn't LOVE to ban right-wing parties, especially the small ones. If the left wins 2020, then many small right-wing parties might fear that they'll be banned.

Extrapolation can also apply to Climate Change, as it's HIGHLY exaggerated.

[San Lumen]

Why should ten percent of the population control statewide offices in a state like Nevada? How is that fair or democratic? Those counties are too red for any democrat to win

What is it with your obsession with Nevada?

Because it’s the best example of why such a system would be unfair and undemocratic

[San Lumen]

Dirt should matter more than votes?

it would be fair to you if the republican won this election despite only getting 36 percent of the vote? This is the Governor election in New York last year https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail ... eID=810000

Or if the republican won this election in Nevada? The two counties the Democrat won are about 85 percent of the population of the state: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail ... eID=822591

Under such a system it would effectively be a rigged election with the minority always controlling statewide offices

Honestly votes don't really matter to me at all. Quite frankly, I don't think we should be making new laws at all.

That doesn’t answer my question. There should be no new laws whatsoever?

[Kowani]

The point was that much like a marriage, the banning of the communist party is a singular event with little indication that it will happen again.

Hurricanes are…really not comparable.

Just because there's no indication now doesn't mean that the left wouldn't LOVE to ban right-wing parties, especially the small ones. If the left wins 2020, then many small right-wing parties might fear that they'll be banned.

Many? There’s 2. And if they were small enough to the point they were able to be banned, they weren’t going to win anything anyway. Also, stop fearmongering.

Extrapolation can also apply to Climate Change, as it's HIGHLY exaggerated.

It’s…really not.

[San Lumen]

Just because there's no indication now doesn't mean that the left wouldn't LOVE to ban right-wing parties, especially the small ones. If the left wins 2020, then many small right-wing parties might fear that they'll be banned.

Many? There’s 2. And if they were small enough to the point they were able to be banned, they weren’t going to win anything anyway. Also, stop fearmongering.

Extrapolation can also apply to Climate Change, as it's HIGHLY exaggerated.

It’s…really not.

Irrelevant to the thread

[Tornado Queendom]

Just because there's no indication now doesn't mean that the left wouldn't LOVE to ban right-wing parties, especially the small ones. If the left wins 2020, then many small right-wing parties might fear that they'll be banned.

Many? There’s 2. And if they were small enough to the point they were able to be banned, they weren’t going to win anything anyway. Also, stop fearmongering.

Actually, it's not like that.

I would've agreed if you meant "genders," but this is politics we're talking about. If we talked about gender, I would've bought up the two genders fact earlier.

Extrapolation can also apply to Climate Change, as it's HIGHLY exaggerated.

It’s…really not.

Remember when they said that Climate Change will destroy our planet by the year 2000?!

[Farnhamia]

Many? There’s 2. And if they were small enough to the point they were able to be banned, they weren’t going to win anything anyway. Also, stop fearmongering.

Actually, it's not like that.

I would've agreed if you meant "genders," but this is politics we're talking about. If we talked about gender, I would've bought up the two genders fact earlier.

It’s…really not.

Remember when they said that Climate Change will destroy our planet by the year 2000?!

Neither gender nor climate change has anything to do with the topic.

[The Lone Alliance]

What is it with your obsession with Nevada?

Because it’s the best example of why such a system would be unfair and undemocratic

No less fair that New York City or Portland uses their population to force their views on the rest of the state against their wishes.

[San Lumen]

Because it’s the best example of why such a system would be unfair and undemocratic

No less undemocratic that Chicago and New York City control Illinois and New York much to the disadvantage of everyone who lives outside of both cities as I pointed out in the Oregon thread.

And how would ten to 15 percent of Nevada controlling the state be any more fair or democratic?

Maybe republicans could try win there instead of rigging the election to favor you

[Telconi]

No less undemocratic that Chicago and New York City control Illinois and New York much to the disadvantage of everyone who lives outside of both cities as I pointed out in the Oregon thread.

And how would ten to 15 percent of Nevada controlling the state be any more fair or democratic?

Maybe republicans could try win there instead of rigging the election to favor you

Why is fairness and democracy of importance?

[Spirit of Hope]

Because it’s the best example of why such a system would be unfair and undemocratic

No less undemocratic that Chicago and New York City control Illinois and New York much to the disadvantage of everyone who lives outside of both cities as I pointed out in the Oregon thread.

If the most people vote for someone, how is it undemocratic that they win? If you have a problem with more people voting for one side causing that side to win, then you have a problem with how democracies operate at a fundamental level. We can work against the problem of the majority being tyrannical against the minority by putting in place checks and balances, like separate houses, executives, judiciary and a fundamental statement of rights. All of which the US has, and balance against a popularly elected president.

[The Lone Alliance]

No less undemocratic that Chicago and New York City control Illinois and New York much to the disadvantage of everyone who lives outside of both cities as I pointed out in the Oregon thread.

If the most people vote for someone, how is it undemocratic that they win? If you have a problem with more people voting for one side causing that side to win, then you have a problem with how democracies operate at a fundamental level. We can work against the problem of the majority being tyrannical against the minority by putting in place checks and balances, like separate houses, executives, judiciary and a fundamental statement of rights. All of which the US has, and balance against a popularly elected president.

I meant to say Unfair cause I do believe it's unfair. Undemocratic doesn't even fit the term anyway.

[San Lumen]

If the most people vote for someone, how is it undemocratic that they win? If you have a problem with more people voting for one side causing that side to win, then you have a problem with how democracies operate at a fundamental level. We can work against the problem of the majority being tyrannical against the minority by putting in place checks and balances, like separate houses, executives, judiciary and a fundamental statement of rights. All of which the US has, and balance against a popularly elected president.

I meant to say Unfair cause I do believe it's unfair. Undemocratic doesn't even fit the term anyway.

Why therefore would electing statewide offices by how many counties they win be a good system?