NationStates

Kowani wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:Yes. And Congress. And the Senate. And the Presidency.

*writes out an invitation to the Queen*

No. Monarchism is shit.

Oof. Ya got me.

Guess I'm done being a Monarchist. *shrug*

Kowani wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:Yes. And Congress. And the Senate. And the Presidency.

*writes out an invitation to the Queen*

No. Monarchism is shit.

Tbf, every political system could be called shit. Politics is more or less squabbling over what’s the least shit.

Arlenton wrote:

Bread Herbert wrote:
Which party is that?

The one that has lost the popular vote in every single presidential election of my lifetime, except once.

That's because they are unpopular.

Salus Maior wrote:

Kowani wrote:No. Monarchism is shit.

Oof. Ya got me.

Guess I'm done being a Monarchist. *shrug*

Glad to see that you have seen the light.

The poll is biased. There's a please explain for no but not so for yes. Hinting that people should vote yes. Fortunately this isn't decided by polls like this. The people that want the electoral college gone effectively want just the big urban areas like Los Angeles county to decide every election as opposed to the 50 states, and overlook that the majority of the time, the electoral college matches the popular vote anyways. So it isn't broken.

Bread Herbert wrote:

Arlenton wrote:The one that has lost the popular vote in every single presidential election of my lifetime, except once.

That's because they are unpopular.

That’s kind of what “lost the popular vote in every single presidential election” implies.

Saiwania wrote:The poll is biased. There's a please explain for no but not so for yes. Hinting that people should vote yes. Fortunately this isn't decided by polls like this. The people that want the electoral college gone effectively want just the big urban areas like Los Angeles county to decide every election as opposed to the 50 states, and overlook that the majority of the time, the electoral college matches the popular vote anyways. So it isn't broken.

They don't always match and most Americans live in urban areas.

Bread Herbert wrote:

Arlenton wrote:The one that has lost the popular vote in every single presidential election of my lifetime, except once.

That's because they are unpopular.

Ok.

And that's why I support the electoral college.

Kowani wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Oof. Ya got me.

Guess I'm done being a Monarchist. *shrug*

Glad to see that you have seen the light.

Unfortunately for you, seeing how divided Republicanism and party rule has made this country doesn't make any love for the system stick.

Saiwania wrote:The poll is biased. There's a please explain for no but not so for yes. Hinting that people should vote yes. Fortunately this isn't decided by polls like this. The people that want the electoral college gone effectively want just the big urban areas like Los Angeles county to decide every election as opposed to the 50 states, and overlook that the majority of the time, the electoral college matches the popular vote anyways. So it isn't broken.

This meme again?

Ors Might wrote:

Bread Herbert wrote:
That's because they are unpopular.

That’s kind of what “lost the popular vote in every single presidential election” implies.

Perhaps they should get better policies.

Bread Herbert wrote:

Saiwania wrote:The poll is biased. There's a please explain for no but not so for yes. Hinting that people should vote yes. Fortunately this isn't decided by polls like this. The people that want the electoral college gone effectively want just the big urban areas like Los Angeles county to decide every election as opposed to the 50 states, and overlook that the majority of the time, the electoral college matches the popular vote anyways. So it isn't broken.

They don't always match and most Americans live in urban areas.

I’m gonna regret the shit show this line of discussion will evolve into but fuck it.

So what if they do?

Ors Might wrote:

Bread Herbert wrote:
They don't always match and most Americans live in urban areas.

I’m gonna regret the shit show this line of discussion will evolve into but fuck it.

So what if they do?

In democracy it is supposed to be rule of the people.

Salus Maior wrote:

Kowani wrote:Glad to see that you have seen the light.

Unfortunately for you, seeing how divided Republicanism and party rule has made this country doesn't make any love for the system stick.

Yes. Because monarchism worked so much better.
Wait, no.

Kowani wrote:

Saiwania wrote:The poll is biased. There's a please explain for no but not so for yes. Hinting that people should vote yes. Fortunately this isn't decided by polls like this. The people that want the electoral college gone effectively want just the big urban areas like Los Angeles county to decide every election as opposed to the 50 states, and overlook that the majority of the time, the electoral college matches the popular vote anyways. So it isn't broken.

This meme again?

Ors Might wrote:That’s kind of what “lost the popular vote in every single presidential election” implies.

Perhaps they should get better policies.

I don’t necessarily think that the Republicans have good policies but basing the quality of policies based on their popularity relies upon the majority having a good methodology for determining quality.

Bread Herbert wrote:

Ors Might wrote:I’m gonna regret the shit show this line of discussion will evolve into but fuck it.

So what if they do?

In democracy it is supposed to be rule of the people.

Depends on the democracy. Some democracies see fit to give minority groups certain protections and powers in order to give them a louder voice.

Bread Herbert wrote:

Ors Might wrote:I’m gonna regret the shit show this line of discussion will evolve into but fuck it.

So what if they do?

In democracy it is supposed to be rule of the people.

It's usually the rule of the majority, for better or for worse.

Ors Might wrote:

Bread Herbert wrote:
They don't always match and most Americans live in urban areas.

I’m gonna regret the shit show this line of discussion will evolve into but fuck it.

So what if they do?

If more people want a candidate, that candidate is elected. It ain’t the city-dwellers’ fault that there aren’t many people in rural Oklahoma. Of course, some of this could conceivably be fixed by switching to ranked voting and moving away from a two-party system.

Anyway, if there’s more people in urban areas than in rural areas, they should get more representation. A person shouldn’t have more voting power than someone else just because they live in a podunk in Wyoming.

Ors Might wrote:

Kowani wrote:This meme again?


Perhaps they should get better policies.

I don’t necessarily think that the Republicans have good policies but basing the quality of policies based on their popularity relies upon the majority having a good methodology for determining quality.

True. But. Every time we’ve had a minority president, they’ve been in between shit and mediocre. There have obviously been terrible majority presidents. But a 100% failure rate would suggest that something is fucking wrong.

Ors Might wrote:

Bread Herbert wrote:
In democracy it is supposed to be rule of the people.

Depends on the democracy. Some democracies see fit to give minority groups certain protections and powers in order to give them a louder voice.

When the minority can override the majority despite a major difference in numbers, you have a broken democracy.

Pacomia wrote:

Ors Might wrote:I’m gonna regret the shit show this line of discussion will evolve into but fuck it.

So what if they do?

If more people want a candidate, that candidate is elected. It ain’t the city-dwellers’ fault that there aren’t many people in rural Oklahoma. Of course, some of this could conceivably be fixed by switching to ranked voting and moving away from a two-party system.

Anyway, if there’s more people in urban areas than in rural areas, they should get more representation. A person shouldn’t have more voting power than someone else just because they live in a podunk in Wyoming.

Why not though? Its not like evening the playing field for numerically inferior groups is exactly a new concept. For fucks sake, it’s legally permissible to gerrymander on racial grounds to benefit black folk.

Kowani wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Unfortunately for you, seeing how divided Republicanism and party rule has made this country doesn't make any love for the system stick.

Yes. Because monarchism worked so much better.
Wait, no.

In some places it does and did.

Look, I'm not going to be swayed by your whinging about "muh monarchy is bad", and you're coming off as childish.

If you actually want to discuss something, discuss it. If not, at least don't half ass it with annoying posts.

Kowani wrote:

Ors Might wrote:I don’t necessarily think that the Republicans have good policies but basing the quality of policies based on their popularity relies upon the majority having a good methodology for determining quality.

True. But. Every time we’ve had a minority president, they’ve been in between shit and mediocre. There have obviously been terrible majority presidents. But a 100% failure rate would suggest that something is fucking wrong.

Ors Might wrote:Depends on the democracy. Some democracies see fit to give minority groups certain protections and powers in order to give them a louder voice.

When the minority can override the majority despite a major difference in numbers, you have a broken democracy.

A broken democracy seems preferable than the majority being able to impose its will without protections for the minority.

Salus Maior wrote:

Kowani wrote:Yes. Because monarchism worked so much better.
Wait, no.

In some places it does and did.

Look, I'm not going to be swayed by your whinging about "muh monarchy is bad", and you're coming off as childish.

If you actually want to discuss something, discuss it. If not, at least don't half ass it with annoying posts.

Yes, this is the thread for that. Clearly.

Ors Might wrote:

Pacomia wrote:If more people want a candidate, that candidate is elected. It ain’t the city-dwellers’ fault that there aren’t many people in rural Oklahoma. Of course, some of this could conceivably be fixed by switching to ranked voting and moving away from a two-party system.

Anyway, if there’s more people in urban areas than in rural areas, they should get more representation. A person shouldn’t have more voting power than someone else just because they live in a podunk in Wyoming.

Why not though? Its not like evening the playing field for numerically inferior groups is exactly a new concept. For fucks sake, it’s legally permissible to gerrymander on racial grounds to benefit black folk.

That's not just permissible, it's mandatory.


I hope we gerrymander the fuck out of every GOP controlled state in 2021.

New haven america wrote:

Bread Herbert wrote:
In democracy it is supposed to be rule of the people.

It's usually the rule of the majority, for better or for worse.

Really only in America. Most other republics don't have the winner-take-all system we have which just sows bitterness, most other ones allow the 'losing' party to take seats wherever, just fewer than the winners. So at least those who bother to go out and vote for the less popular party get something for their vote, instead of it being a complete waste of time.

Ors Might wrote:

Pacomia wrote:If more people want a candidate, that candidate is elected. It ain’t the city-dwellers’ fault that there aren’t many people in rural Oklahoma. Of course, some of this could conceivably be fixed by switching to ranked voting and moving away from a two-party system.

Anyway, if there’s more people in urban areas than in rural areas, they should get more representation. A person shouldn’t have more voting power than someone else just because they live in a podunk in Wyoming.

Why not though? Its not like evening the playing field for numerically inferior groups is exactly a new concept. For fucks sake, it’s legally permissible to gerrymander on racial grounds to benefit black folk.

Leveling the playing field shouldn’t be a thing in democracy. Each person should get 1 vote, and exactly 1 vote, no less, no more.

Also, the electoral college doesn’t even necessarily benefit small states because the electors are in no way required to vote how their constituency or district or whatever voted. Hell, an elector could even vote for Party A even if everyone they were representing voted for Party B. Nothing is stopping them.