NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:23 pm**

The Reformed American Republic wrote:
Third ZSeparatists wrote:
What makes you think that?

The electoral college is what allows smaller areas to have a say,

No, this is a blatant attempt to prevent any other party from getting the governorship. There is no evidence that small areas of Texas are not well represented.

There are Republican cities in addition to Democratic ones, and that also allows them to win with the small areas also voting for Republicans. In Texas, small areas have such a low population that they need to rely on other cities to help them. Only a few can go a long way.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:29 pm**

Heloin wrote:Back home we had a war to end minority rule.

I would much rather have minority rule than majority rule. Think about it. With minority rule, you can have them either voted out or overthrown if they're going too far. With majority rule however, what can you do? There's nothing you can do in that case; it's like going up against at least 5 guys in a fight at once by yourself.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:34 pm**

Third ZSeparatists wrote:
New haven america wrote:Imagine taking the time to come up with this response, typing it out, and then hitting Submit, and thinking that it's a statement worth taking seriously.

I can't.

It took about a minute to write, since it’s something short and simple.

A minute wasted more like it.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:35 pm**

Third ZSeparatists wrote:
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
No, the Electoral College is what allows unpopular people that should lose elections to win them instead. This is the only reason the GOP has remained as dominate as it has been for the last forty years - to the detriment of the entire Union.

Okay. Going by popular vote means larger areas in states are the only ones that actually have a say. Also, that is an argument but in a federal system the electoral college is needed. If you want to make the argument you are, just make the US one single state, without state governments and just one national government.

(Also, my device died for a little)

New haven america wrote:
Third ZSeparatists wrote:
What makes you think that?

The electoral college is what allows smaller areas to have a say,

No, actually, it only gives a say to areas of strategic importance.

For example, despite being touted as a system that gives more say to areas like bumfuck middle of nowhere Wyoming, that's not actually true because no presidential candidate has actually campaigned there since like, the 70's or 80's. So yeah, no presidential campaign has set foot there for 20+ years and yet they're apparently supposed to bee treated with equal importance to all other areas.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:42 pm**

Kyundao wrote:
Heloin wrote:Back home we had a war to end minority rule.

I would much rather have minority rule than majority rule. Think about it. With minority rule, you can have them either voted out or overthrown if they're going too far. With majority rule however, what can you do? There's nothing you can do in that case; it's like going up against at least 5 guys in a fight at once by yourself.

The minority rule she's talking about is the white rule in Zimbabwe. It was in no way a good thing.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:44 pm**

Kyundao wrote:
Heloin wrote:Back home we had a war to end minority rule.

I would much rather have minority rule than majority rule. Think about it. With minority rule, you can have them either voted out or overthrown if they're going too far. With majority rule however, what can you do? There's nothing you can do in that case; it's like going up against at least 5 guys in a fight at once by yourself.

So... you support tyranny by a minority since it easier then making your ideas appealing to other people? Maybe someone who doesn’t realise the wars generally destroy countries they take place in needs to have a second thoughts about supporting minority rule.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:44 pm**

Dangine wrote:
Kyundao wrote:
I would much rather have minority rule than majority rule. Think about it. With minority rule, you can have them either voted out or overthrown if they're going too far. With majority rule however, what can you do? There's nothing you can do in that case; it's like going up against at least 5 guys in a fight at once by yourself.

The minority rule she's talking about is the white rule in Zimbabwe. It was in no way a good thing.

White people never ruled Zimbabwe. It was called Rhodesia then.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:46 pm**

Greed and Death wrote:
Dangine wrote:The minority rule she's talking about is the white rule in Zimbabwe. It was in no way a good thing.

White people never ruled Zimbabwe. It was called Rhodesia then.

Same country, different name.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:49 pm**

An electoral college is intended to keep a tyrannical majority from quickly destroying the well-being of the entirety. Yes, it is undemocratic — because it is intended to kneecap or at least slow down a major fault in democracy.

Personally, I think we should set up a system where no state can have less than 2.5 million people or more than 6 million people. When your state hits 5 million, it automatically goes into planning for the split and must divide before it reaches 6 million. This would split the country into small, authoritarian, urban states and large, mostly rural states. And they would have a harder time imposing their much-at-odds whims on each other.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:53 pm**

Greed and Death wrote:
Dangine wrote:The minority rule she's talking about is the white rule in Zimbabwe. It was in no way a good thing.

White people never ruled Zimbabwe. It was called Rhodesia then.

Factually untrue.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:53 pm**

Exxosia wrote:An electoral college is intended to keep a tyrannical majority from quickly destroying the well-being of the entirety. Yes, it is undemocratic — because it is intended to kneecap or at least slow down a major fault in democracy.

Personally, I think we should set up a system where no state can have less than 2.5 million people or more than 6 million people. When your state hits 5 million, it automatically goes into planning for the split and must divide before it reaches 6 million. This would split the country into small, authoritarian, urban states and large, mostly rural states. And they would have a harder time imposing their much-at-odds whims on each other.

New haven america wrote:
Third ZSeparatists wrote:
What makes you think that?

The electoral college is what allows smaller areas to have a say,

No, actually, it only gives a say to areas of strategic importance.

For example, despite being touted as a system that gives more say to areas like bumfuck middle of nowhere Wyoming, that's not actually true because no presidential candidate has actually campaigned there since like, the 70's or 80's. So yeah, no presidential campaign has set foot there for 20+ years and yet they're apparently supposed to bee treated with equal importance to all other areas.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:58 pm**

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
San Lumen wrote:https://americanindependent.com/texas-gop-electoral-college-rig-elections-popular-vote-senate/?fbclid=IwAR2XnNrZoxrLTk5t9ULJ49q7JO8v1vQQJ9sRNQWLhDz6NmFaPm1s-sXtZIs

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/l ... itutional/

Republicans in Texas are proposing a state electoral college to chose statewide officials to overturn a popular vote victory. Delegates would chosen by each state senate district who would then chose state officials. They are likely proposing this due to the most populous counties leftward trend.

This proposal is undemocratic and unconstitutional as it would violate one man one vote and could mean a Republican always wins a statewide election. Land area shouldn’t determine who wins only the number of votes you get. It’s beyond obvious at this point Republicans hate democracy.

Your thoughts nsg?

It explicitly states in the Texas constitution that politicians MUST be elected by popular vote?

It doesn’t matter. It would violate one man, one vote

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:59 pm**

Kyundao wrote:
Third ZSeparatists wrote:There's a problem with that.

In popular vote, it's not democracy, it's tyranny of the majority.

As someone who lives in Washington state, I can confirm that. The most populated areas - the ones along the I-5 Corridor - tend to make really lousy decisions and the sad part is Washington state goes by popular vote, which means the most populated areas can easily dictate what the rest of the state does (even if they don't want it). It's not even fair honestly.

So you think it would be fair for Republicans to always win statewide elections because they win more land area

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:06 pm**

San Lumen wrote:So you think it would be fair for Republicans to always win statewide elections because they win more land area

Every ballot we get here has several pieces of legislation, which are not good most of the time. Combine those kinds of ballots with majority rule and you get the situation I'm in.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:07 pm**

Third ZSeparatists wrote:In popular vote, it's not democracy, it's tyranny of the majority.

AKA democracy.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:14 pm**

Third ZSeparatists wrote:
San Lumen wrote:https://americanindependent.com/texas-gop-electoral-college-rig-elections-popular-vote-senate/?fbclid=IwAR2XnNrZoxrLTk5t9ULJ49q7JO8v1vQQJ9sRNQWLhDz6NmFaPm1s-sXtZIs

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/l ... itutional/

Republicans in Texas are proposing a state electoral college to chose statewide officials to overturn a popular vote victory. Delegates would chosen by each state senate district who would then chose state officials. They are likely proposing this due to the most populous counties leftward trend.

This proposal is undemocratic and unconstitutional as it would violate one man one vote and could mean a Republican always wins a statewide election. Land area shouldn’t determine who wins only the number of votes you get. It’s beyond obvious at this point Republicans hate democracy.

Your thoughts nsg?

There's a problem with that.

In popular vote, it's not democracy, it's tyranny of the majority.

Per Plato, Tyranny of the Majority is Democracy gone bad.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:17 pm**

Fuck this bullshit.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:22 pm**

San Lumen wrote:
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
It explicitly states in the Texas constitution that politicians MUST be elected by popular vote?

It doesn’t matter. It would violate one man, one vote

And yet, it's legal for presidential elections. So why can't a state copy that system.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:23 pm**

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
San Lumen wrote:It doesn’t matter. It would violate one man, one vote

And yet, it's legal for presidential elections. So why can't a state copy that system.

Why should they?

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:24 pm**

Diarcesia wrote:
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
And yet, it's legal for presidential elections. So why can't a state copy that system.

Why should they?

Maybe they want to.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:25 pm**

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Diarcesia wrote:Why should they?

Maybe they want to.

The people, or those who will happen to benefit from the move?

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:27 pm**

Diarcesia wrote:
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Maybe they want to.

The people, or those who will happen to benefit from the move?

Either group.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:28 pm**

Diarcesia wrote:
Third ZSeparatists wrote:
There's a problem with that.

In popular vote, it's not democracy, it's tyranny of the majority.

Per Plato, Tyranny of the Majority is Democracy gone bad.

Well ancient Greece was a mixture of monarchies and oligarchies so of course he'd think that.

Like most ancient Greeks he also didn't believe women should be allowed outside, so why do his opinions matter?

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:28 pm**

I'm not going to let a handful of leftist cities decide the fate of the rest of us. I'd rather wall off Atlanta and let them become a city state before I let them decide what happens to my state. The Democrats can't rule by mob, the rest of us won't stand for it.

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:30 pm**

...it may have made sense when Texas declared their independence from Mexico, given that the fastest way to communicate between places was some guy on a horse, but in the modern world, the only logical reason why a state would do such a thing is to basically keep the Republicans in power unless the Democrats somehow manage to penetrate the rural areas.

NationStates

Texas Republicans propose State Electoral college