NationStates

Kowani wrote:

Arlenton wrote:So policies I support are more likely to be enacted, and those I oppose less likely.

Perhaps you should get better policies. Or better politicians.

Or... Keep the policies I like and politicians I like, and keep winning despite losing the popular vote?

Arlenton wrote:

Kowani wrote:Perhaps you should get better policies. Or better politicians.

Or... Keep the policies I like and politicians I like, and keep winning despite losing the popular vote?

So, you are in favor of minority rule?

Ors Might wrote:

Kowani wrote:No shit. That’s the thing about large groups of people-someone is always gonna get fucked over. Regardless I how much you “level the playing field”, someone isn’t gonna have their interests met.

Indeed, which is why you introduce protections and balances in order to prevent as much of the fuckening as you can.

If the EC did that, you might have a point.

Ors Might wrote:

Kowani wrote:Except, you know-it is. You attempt to make it sound better, but it remains minority rule.

False. The majority isn’t able to vote on whether asians can be considered human. That does not make this a minority rule of asians.

I mean, it is. Constitutional amendments are a thing. The fact is that the majority considers Asians to be human, because we’re not racist fuckheads.

Salus Maior wrote:

Pacomia wrote:Normally, I’m in full support of states making their own laws and having as much power as possible, but this is just ridiculous. When an elector votes against their people they are not only failing to do their job, but also undermining democracy. It’s just dumb.

Then I guess if the people have a problem with it, they can make laws on it.

I don’t understand who wouldn’t have a problem with it, but okay.

Pacomia wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Then I guess if the people have a problem with it, they can make laws on it.

I don’t understand who wouldn’t have a problem with it, but okay.

You can go ask the people of those states then.

Bread Herbert wrote:

Arlenton wrote:Or... Keep the policies I like and politicians I like, and keep winning despite losing the popular vote?

So, you are in favor of minority rule?

If I'm in the minority, yeah.

Arlenton wrote:

New haven america wrote:Because part of the reason it was made was continue the disenfranchisement of slaves in the South.

If the South actually considered black people as, you know, people, then it would've gotten equal representation in Congress during the early days of the country, but they didn't, hence their population was counted as lower than the North's. They got all uppity about that and the person who invented the EC had to make it so they got equal say while also allowing them to continue having slavery.

The Southern slave owners wanted slaves to count as full people. Northerners did not want them counted at all.

Uh, no, it went more like this:


And that's how The 3/5's Compromise and a massive part of the EC (As well as not trusting the voting population) was made.

Arlenton wrote:

Bread Herbert wrote:
So, you are in favor of minority rule?

If I'm in the minority, yeah.

So, you hate freedom and prefer tyranny. Got it.

Arlenton wrote:

Kowani wrote:Perhaps you should get better policies. Or better politicians.

Or... Keep the policies I like and politicians I like, and keep winning despite losing the popular vote?

Except for the fact that you lose most of the time.

Kowani wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Indeed, which is why you introduce protections and balances in order to prevent as much of the fuckening as you can.

If the EC did that, you might have a point.

Ors Might wrote:False. The majority isn’t able to vote on whether asians can be considered human. That does not make this a minority rule of asians.

I mean, it is. Constitutional amendments are a thing. The fact is that the majority considers Asians to be human, because we’re not racist fuckheads.

Let it be known that I don’t support the Electoral College for exactly that reason.

Friendly reminder that that is a fairly recent change for the majority.

New haven america wrote:

Arlenton wrote:The Southern slave owners wanted slaves to count as full people. Northerners did not want them counted at all.

Uh, no, it went more like this:

The North "Welp, we've successfully drafted up this Constitution and Congressional system, congrats everyone!"

Everyone: "Yay!"

The North: "Yep, looks like everything is equal... oh, sorry South, you don't have equal representation, you don't count your slaves as people, sorry."

The South: "That is horrendous ya'll, we deserve equal representation just like everyone else. Ya'll wanna know what? Fine count them!"

The North: "Oh, well, that's great! So we'll just count them as citizens, and give them equal representation under the law, tax obligations, the ability to own land and work as they wish-"

The South: "Wait just one gosh darn minute! I never said they can be people, they're not people, they're slaves and they should be treated as such!"

The North: "*sigh* Fine, if want to keep slave then you can, but you're not counting them as people and that means you don't get equal representation. So do you suppose we fix this"

The South: "Hm..."

And that's how The 3/5's Compromise and a massive part of the EC (As well as not trusting the voting population) was made.

So basically what I said. Wanting to treat slaves as people only to get more representation, but not in any way else.

Kind of reminds me of sanctuary cities.

Bread Herbert wrote:

Arlenton wrote:If I'm in the minority, yeah.

So, you hate freedom and prefer tyranny. Got it.

What's wrong with him acting in his own interest?

Not like you're any different. Considering abolishing the Electoral College will mean you're more likely to get what you want.

Salus Maior wrote:

Pacomia wrote:I don’t understand who wouldn’t have a problem with it, but okay.

You can go ask the people of those states then.

Can you tell me which states those are? I can’t see to find a list of them online.

Pacomia wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
You can go ask the people of those states then.

Can you tell me which states those are? I can’t see to find a list of them online.

I don't know, and don't really care.

Arlenton wrote:

New haven america wrote:Uh, no, it went more like this:

The North "Welp, we've successfully drafted up this Constitution and Congressional system, congrats everyone!"

Everyone: "Yay!"

The North: "Yep, looks like everything is equal... oh, sorry South, you don't have equal representation, you don't count your slaves as people, sorry."

The South: "That is horrendous ya'll, we deserve equal representation just like everyone else. Ya'll wanna know what? Fine count them!"

The North: "Oh, well, that's great! So we'll just count them as citizens, and give them equal representation under the law, tax obligations, the ability to own land and work as they wish-"

The South: "Wait just one gosh darn minute! I never said they can be people, they're not people, they're slaves and they should be treated as such!"

The North: "*sigh* Fine, if want to keep slave then you can, but you're not counting them as people and that means you don't get equal representation. So do you suppose we fix this"

The South: "Hm..."

And that's how The 3/5's Compromise and a massive part of the EC (As well as not trusting the voting population) was made.

So basically what I said. Wanting to treat slaves as people only to get more representation, but not in any way else.

Kind of reminds me of sanctuary cities.

No, the North was okay with them being counted as people and the South getting full representation, but the South didn't want that as that would mean they'd be allowed all the rights and freedoms of regular American citizens at the time, and they threw a hissy fit because the North wasn't letting them have their way. You don't get to have slaves count as full people but not give them the rights of people.

Ors Might wrote:

Kowani wrote:If the EC did that, you might have a point.


I mean, it is. Constitutional amendments are a thing. The fact is that the majority considers Asians to be human, because we’re not racist fuckheads.

Let it be known that I don’t support the Electoral College for exactly that reason.

Friendly reminder that that is a fairly recent change for the majority.

That’s…almost like a point.

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.

Kowani wrote:

Arlenton wrote:Or... Keep the policies I like and politicians I like, and keep winning despite losing the popular vote?

Except for the fact that you lose most of the time.

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.

Kowani wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Let it be known that I don’t support the Electoral College for exactly that reason.

Friendly reminder that that is a fairly recent change for the majority.

That’s…almost like a point.

Look man, I’m not arguing for any specific system of doing this junk, mainly because I’m not smart enough to know how to work that crap out. What I’m intending to argue is that giving minorities protections in a democracy is good as you can’t rely on the majority to vote on behalf of what will benefit everyone, or even the most amount of people.

Arlenton wrote:

Kowani wrote:Except for the fact that you lose most of the time.

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.

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?

New haven america wrote:

Arlenton wrote:So basically what I said. Wanting to treat slaves as people only to get more representation, but not in any way else.

Kind of reminds me of sanctuary cities.

No, the North was okay wit them being counted as people, but the South didn't want that as that would mean they'd be allowed all the rights and freedoms of regular American citizens at the time, and they threw a hissy fit because the North wasn't letting them have their way. You don't get to have slaves count as full people but not give them the rights of people.

No. The North was not ok with them being counted for representation lmfao. Counting non-voting slaves gave extra representation to the slave states.

Pacomia 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.

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.

Pacomia 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.

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?

Depends. A turnaround would would mean that the coalitions have just changed. It may turn back around at some point after

Then there's the whole constitutional part of it. I'm super originalist, and changing something like this does not sound good.

Arlenton wrote:

New haven america wrote:No, the North was okay wit them being counted as people, but the South didn't want that as that would mean they'd be allowed all the rights and freedoms of regular American citizens at the time, and they threw a hissy fit because the North wasn't letting them have their way. You don't get to have slaves count as full people but not give them the rights of people.

1. No. The North was not ok with them being counted for representation lmfao. 2. Counting non-voting slaves gave extra representation to the slave states.

1. Yes, they actually were. Or are you just purposefully forgetting the North has always been historically anti-slavery?
2. Which the North didn't allow because in order to count those slaves, they'd need to be treated as actual human beings, something the South had no intention of doing.

Arlenton wrote:

Kowani wrote:Except for the fact that you lose most of the time.

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.