Donald Trump and US politics

"

Kellog wrote:

"

JNF wrote:

Do you need therapy or something?

Why would I? I've been celebrating since last November.

"

Jennik wrote:

"

Destructodave wrote:

Thankfully, the presidency isn't decided by just the people who live in California and New York.

Your hatred of democracy is disgusting. Everyone's vote should be equally counted. All voices should be equally weighted in an election. The presidency should be decided by all Americans without unfairly favoring those who live inside certain arbitrary shapes drawn in the dirt.

Holding a megaphone to the votes of certain Americans is a gross injustice that any decent, honest person would be against. Why aren't you against it?

Classic Jennik, always appealing to some arbitrary moral standards. I'll just leave this here.

"

JNF wrote:

"

Kellog wrote:

Do you need therapy or something?

Why would I? I've been celebrating since last November.

I guess we all have our cross to bear. Perhaps the weight of yours is affecting your mind...

"

Jennik wrote:

"

Destructodave wrote:

Thankfully, the presidency isn't decided by just the people who live in California and New York.

Your hatred of democracy is disgusting. Everyone's vote should be equally counted. All voices should be equally weighted in an election. The presidency should be decided by all Americans without unfairly favoring those who live inside certain arbitrary shapes drawn in the dirt.

Holding a megaphone to the votes of certain Americans is a gross injustice that any decent, honest person would be against. Why aren't you against it?

DO you also want to abolish the senate? Each state gets 2 senators? how is that fair? I am from Delaware, we have a population smaller than most cities and still get the same amount of senators as California.

Why do people like you only complain about the Electoral college, but never the senate? The senate is far more imbalanced than the electoral college, by an exponential scale.

It makes a person wonder if the people who complain about the electoral college even understand much of anything about USA election system beyond the Presidential election.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Jennik wrote:

"

Destructodave wrote:

Thankfully, the presidency isn't decided by just the people who live in California and New York.

Your hatred of democracy is disgusting. Everyone's vote should be equally counted. All voices should be equally weighted in an election. The presidency should be decided by all Americans without unfairly favoring those who live inside certain arbitrary shapes drawn in the dirt.

Holding a megaphone to the votes of certain Americans is a gross injustice that any decent, honest person would be against. Why aren't you against it?

Classic Jennik, always appealing to some arbitrary moral standards. I'll just leave this here.

I've been thinking about this "electoral college favors the GOP" argument and it really doesn't make sense to me. Look at the House — overwhelmingly Republican. Now look at the Senate — still Republican controlled, but not as much as the Senate. It seems to me that "favoring those who live inside certain arbitrary shapes" leads to more Democrat representation, not less (hello New England).

The true culprit here is NOT the electoral college itself, but the "winner takes all" (WTA) policy in terms of a state's electors. For example, let's say Florida assigned electors proportional to the vote, rather than WTA: the result would be 14 Trump, 14 Clinton, 1 Johnson.* That is where your popular vote is being lost, not the college itself. This is also a problem in terms of Texas and amnesty. Republicans have a clear incentive to thoroughly oppose amnesty when it would throw all of the state's electors from Republican to Democrat. Just as a matter of the continued relevance of the party, it's suicidal for them not to oppose. Even independents have incentive to save the GOP here so some semblance of balance between the two parties is maintained.

The big problem with the WTA situation is no one has incentive to change it. For swing states, WTA gives them disproportionate attention from candidates who campaign primarily in swing states. For states that are firmly red or blue, the controlling party would be giving its opposition electoral votes that are firmly under its control away for "free." So unless there is a large grassroots movement for abolishing WTA, it isn't going to happen.

The good news is: WTA is a matter of state law, not federal. Some states already assign electors proportionally, Maine and Nebraska IIRC. Changing the law is a matter of state-level activism and wouldn't require a coordinated national campaign.

I do, of course, find it hilarious (and typical) that the SJWs of the internet can't even troubleshoot the problem correctly before making a non-solution into a major meme. All outrage, no critical thinking.

I agree that WTA in the electoral college is a significant issue that needs to be changed. Make every state competitive.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

I agree that WTA in the electoral college is a significant issue that needs to be changed. Make every state competitive.

As a proponent of IRV and third parties (in theory if not in current practice), I'm ultimately against WTA as well. The important part, for me anyway, of that math exercise earlier wasn't "Clinton 14," it was "Johnson 1."

It is possible to hybridize IRV with the EC. If there are three candidates, you'd have six different types of electors — AB, AC, BA, BC, CA, and CB. 4 candidates, 24 types of electors; 5 120; etc. Under non-WTA a state could assign electors that way and it'd be fine with me.

However, I think going straight popular vote would be a lot more straightforward. I would be okay getting rid of the EC if IRV was part of the deal. As a principle of negotiation, I'm otherwise pro-EC; if you won't support my plan, lefties, I won't support yours. But I'm against WTA regardless.

If the goal is to encourage more splinter parties (that could grow into major parties), then the popular vote is the way to go. If one wants to encourage the two party system, then the EC without WTA, is the best path. In a two party system the parties form the coalitions prior to the elections and try to keep them together afterwards. In a multi-party system the dominate elected party has to form the coalition after the election from among those elected.

1996:



2017:

"

ChanBalam wrote:

If the goal is to encourage more splinter parties (that could grow into major parties), then the popular vote is the way to go. If one wants to encourage the two party system, then the EC without WTA, is the best path. In a two party system the parties form the coalitions prior to the elections and try to keep them together afterwards. In a multi-party system the dominate elected party has to form the coalition after the election from among those elected.

For Congress, sure. For President, not so much.