Author Topic: How do you view the popular vote?  (Read 4286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3179
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #245 on: December 20, 2016, 04:45:05 AM »
There is a rational reason that the electoral college adjusts the electorates based on the states population. You claim that Wyoming has an edge because they have more electoral votes per population, and this is half true. Yes, they have more electoral votes per their population, but this doesn't give them an edge. In order to give every state a fair representation, these adjustments need to be made. If not, we'll find that elections are decided by only the most populated states, and the measly 60,000 or so citizens of Cheyenne, Wyoming would have their votes count for next to nothing. Numerous studies have been done on this and it's not that hard to understand. I'm sure you'll figure it out. I have faith in you.

How does it make the representation more fair?   What is the rationale or measuring stick for fairness?  Why Cali at 55, and why WY at 3?

Having State elections prevents a national popular vote.  What should each state be worth and why?  The way it is now, it is not a fair or equal. 
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 04:55:31 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 15939
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #246 on: December 20, 2016, 05:11:34 AM »
I just explained how it makes it more fair. It's not rocket science. I'm not saying the EC is perfect and flawless, but it's certainly a more accurate representation of the nation as a whole.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3179
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #247 on: December 20, 2016, 05:18:41 AM »
I just explained how it makes it more fair. It's not rocket science. I'm not saying the EC is perfect and flawless, but it's certainly a more accurate representation of the nation as a whole.

No, you just said it is a more fair representation, but didnt say how or why.  And the math shows it is a woefulkly innacurate representation as a whole.

What criteria are you using to determine "fairness"?   

Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 15939
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #248 on: December 20, 2016, 05:30:14 AM »
I just explained how it makes it more fair. It's not rocket science. I'm not saying the EC is perfect and flawless, but it's certainly a more accurate representation of the nation as a whole.

No, you just said it is a more fair representation, but didnt say how or why.  And the math shows it is a woefulkly innacurate representation as a whole.

What criteria are you using to determine "fairness"?

I certainly said why and how. I'm not going to let you lure me into to this evasive logic of yours like you did with 7th. You know exactly what I said and you know exactly what it means. Let's just leave it at that.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3179
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #249 on: December 20, 2016, 05:33:39 AM »
I just explained how it makes it more fair. It's not rocket science. I'm not saying the EC is perfect and flawless, but it's certainly a more accurate representation of the nation as a whole.

No, you just said it is a more fair representation, but didnt say how or why.  And the math shows it is a woefulkly innacurate representation as a whole.

What criteria are you using to determine "fairness"?

I certainly said why and how. I'm not going to let you lure me into to this evasive logic of yours like you did with 7th. You know exactly what I said and you know exactly what it means. Let's just leave it at that.

Logic isnt a trap ProgSnob.

If, like you said, the EC votes are to be determined by population, why are they not done by population?
What other factors are used to determine fairness in EC votes between states?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1177
Thankee-sai

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7535
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #251 on: December 20, 2016, 08:24:37 AM »
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world. 

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1177
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #252 on: December 20, 2016, 08:33:29 AM »
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world.

I read somewhere that one of the electors from Texas voted for Kasich. I haven't seen anything about the others. I'll have to look around a little. It'll probably be easy to find, though.
Thankee-sai

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3179
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #253 on: December 20, 2016, 09:11:38 AM »
I think the EC, with its individual state elections is fine.  The state elections fix the popular national vote concerns.  The only tweak needed is to make the number of votes a state gets,to be more representative of its voting population.  That fixes the issues with votes having different value.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 09:18:16 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7535
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #254 on: December 20, 2016, 10:28:13 AM »
"Having different value" is not a problem.  That's the point.    It's not tied SOLELY to population for a reason, and it's not supposed to be.  Part of the beauty of this is that it gives the STATE power.  Not the people of the state, the STATE ITSELF.  That's why the "+2" with regards to representation; so that it's not purely a function of population.   States can't be gerrymandered like counties and districts can.  Tying the EC to population - even if calculated by state - has a symmetry, but not a functionality.  It would remove an essential fail-safe.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3179
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #255 on: December 20, 2016, 11:23:29 AM »
"Having different value" is not a problem.  That's the point.    It's not tied SOLELY to population for a reason, and it's not supposed to be.  Part of the beauty of this is that it gives the STATE power.  Not the people of the state, the STATE ITSELF.  That's why the "+2" with regards to representation; so that it's not purely a function of population.   States can't be gerrymandered like counties and districts can.  Tying the EC to population - even if calculated by state - has a symmetry, but not a functionality.  It would remove an essential fail-safe.

The state still has the power with EC votes tied to population.
And what is the fail safe for and how does it work?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 899
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #256 on: December 20, 2016, 11:30:20 AM »
So, let's just say Clinton won the electoral at 272-268, and those electoral voters did as they did, what chaos would ensue from their actions?  THAT is the part that is scary

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14148
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #257 on: December 20, 2016, 12:03:58 PM »
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world.

I read somewhere that one of the electors from Texas voted for Kasich. I haven't seen anything about the others. I'll have to look around a little. It'll probably be easy to find, though.

Yea, I read some democrating voters switched to more moderate conservatives like Kasich in hopes that republicans would follow but it did not work.

Also, I am very glad this did not work.  Regardless of whether the EC is the best solution, I don't think it's a good idea for the electors to change the will of the people.  I'm honestly not sure what the point is of having actual electors doing voting and not just go by the numbers and let them fall as the votes land.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7535
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #258 on: December 20, 2016, 12:06:05 PM »
It's important to understand that the alternative to the electoral college is not just "popular vote", but a vote of the representatives of CONGRESS.  Those were the alternatives that were being considered by the Founding Fathers.   Remember, there is no other election we have that is truly national; EVERY other election is handled on the state or local level, and that is a specific throwback to the sanctity of states rights.   In this age of instant communication, and flash travel, we have minimized in recent times the power of states and the obligation of STATES to implement the will of the people, not the Federal government.  But in that light, we have to equally protect the rights of the STATES almost as much (but not as much) as the rights of the people.  So what happens is, as states grow smaller, they have disproportionally greater power, but at the other end, where presumably the rights of the people are more represented, that doesn't grant those states proportionally more power. 

By skewing the power disproportionately to the smaller states, it not only empowers them, but creates incentive for candidates to concentrate on those localities in our nation that are NOT the populist centers.  If it was truly proportional, then even though the smaller states would have SOME power, they would not have enough to overcome the mass of populist areas, and the fear is, even though they would have a vote, per se, they wouldn't necessarily have a VOICE, or have the attention of the candidates.   Again, not the PEOPLE of that state, but the state itself.  By that I mean the policies, geography, industry, and programs of that state.  It is also a safeguard against rapid relocation (migration) to/from the cities.     
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 12:12:00 PM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7535
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #259 on: December 20, 2016, 12:11:42 PM »
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world.

I read somewhere that one of the electors from Texas voted for Kasich. I haven't seen anything about the others. I'll have to look around a little. It'll probably be easy to find, though.

Yea, I read some democrating voters switched to more moderate conservatives like Kasich in hopes that republicans would follow but it did not work.

Also, I am very glad this did not work.  Regardless of whether the EC is the best solution, I don't think it's a good idea for the electors to change the will of the people.  I'm honestly not sure what the point is of having actual electors doing voting and not just go by the numbers and let them fall as the votes land.

Well, as much as I don't think that it should have happened here, on this one point, the naysayers are correct.  The idea was to create distance - time, primarily, but also emotional - between the people actually pulling the lever and those actually casting the vote for the president.   The idea wasn't to supplant political will - it's not intended to be a partisan idea - but it was meant to provide time to "sober up" if you will, and give some

Remember, the Founding Fathers were students of this game.  They feared the perils of a direct democracy (mob rule, in essence) as much as they feared the aristocracy that they had just fought against for independence.  So the electors provided a separation from the mob whereby they would presumably represent and reflect the will of the people, but provide a cushion in the event that the mob elected (I think Hamilton said this) "a criminal, a traitor, or a heinous person".

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14148
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #260 on: December 20, 2016, 12:14:59 PM »
Thank god reason prevailed.  The EC has proven it's worth, genius and beauty time and time again, giving all people a voice, more voice than they would have under the simplistic (it's COMMON SENSE!) "popular vote".  Slicing it any way shape or form you want - popular vote, EC, combination of both - Trump wins without California.  ONLY the votes of California, and only for the POPULAR vote, change that.   So now you have a system whereby the other 49 states are heard, AND California is heard (none of those votes are wasted, because they led to Hillary having all 55 electoral votes).   

It's a marvelous system, really.


Oh, and I find some comfort that in yesterday's tally, FIVE electors decided to vote their conscience and not follow the prescriptions of their state's voters.  One was removed from their seat by state law and replaced by an elector that WOULD vote the voice of the people, and the other four were allowed to vote for other candidates (though they didn't vote for the opposite candidate).   The kicker to all this?  For all her squawking and crying and whining and complaining, all FIVE opted NOT to vote for HILLARY, not TRUMP.   There is some small justice in the world.

I read somewhere that one of the electors from Texas voted for Kasich. I haven't seen anything about the others. I'll have to look around a little. It'll probably be easy to find, though.

Yea, I read some democrating voters switched to more moderate conservatives like Kasich in hopes that republicans would follow but it did not work.

Also, I am very glad this did not work.  Regardless of whether the EC is the best solution, I don't think it's a good idea for the electors to change the will of the people.  I'm honestly not sure what the point is of having actual electors doing voting and not just go by the numbers and let them fall as the votes land.

Well, as much as I don't think that it should have happened here, on this one point, the naysayers are correct.  The idea was to create distance - time, primarily, but also emotional - between the people actually pulling the lever and those actually casting the vote for the president.   The idea wasn't to supplant political will - it's not intended to be a partisan idea - but it was meant to provide time to "sober up" if you will, and give some

Remember, the Founding Fathers were students of this game.  They feared the perils of a direct democracy (mob rule, in essence) as much as they feared the aristocracy that they had just fought against for independence.  So the electors provided a separation from the mob whereby they would presumably represent and reflect the will of the people, but provide a cushion in the event that the mob elected (I think Hamilton said this) "a criminal, a traitor, or a heinous person".

Cool, yea I don't know the history behind this.  Interesting cause I could see Trump described as a heinous person and Hillary described as a criminal.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3179
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #261 on: December 20, 2016, 12:19:35 PM »
It's still a distinction without a difference.  If states power should be equal, then make them equal.  If equality is not the goal the distribute the EC votes with some sense of logic.  There is no reasoning behind how it affects the varying states.  The votes are already partially by population, why artificially create an illogical imbalance.

And I still do not see what it is a fail safe against.  Each state is still in control with its own election.  If a state is smaller with fewer people it should count less.  If you want the disparity to be lessened, do it proportionately.  Just adding two votes to every state creates more problems than it solves.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #262 on: December 20, 2016, 12:23:37 PM »
Degressively proportional systems make some sense if you are electing multiple representatives. In the case of a winner takes all system however, all you do is exchange one mob for another. How exactly is a minority of the population being allowed to subject a majority to its will a good thing?

And we already have an elected body in which all states have equal power: the senate.

Offline 7th

  • Posts: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #263 on: December 20, 2016, 12:54:01 PM »
How exactly is a minority of the population being allowed to subject a majority to its will a good thing?

It's an awesome thing.  I will once again cite the example of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.  In the USA right now the wolves are the urban liberals.  They were supporting a corrupt and incompetent individual for office who promoted division, hate, lawlessness, and hawkish views towards foreign policy.  The system worked and the more moderate and reasonable middle America prevailed.  It is a very good thing.  If Trump proves to be a bad leader, he'll be gone in four years (or sooner).  If he is a good leader, be honest about it and support him.  Just let the system work.
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3179
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #264 on: December 20, 2016, 12:59:04 PM »
Can't you at least try to take partisan politics out of the discussion?  It really can be discussed much better without the bias and political rhetoric.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5356
  • Gender: Male
Re: How do you view the popular vote?
« Reply #265 on: December 20, 2016, 01:46:57 PM »
In the USA right now the wolves are the urban liberals.  They were supporting a corrupt and incompetent individual for office who promoted division, hate, lawlessness, and hawkish views towards foreign policy.  The system worked and the more moderate and reasonable middle America prevailed.

It's very hard to have a meaningful discussion among statements like this. I could respond on the very same level by saying:

Yeah, well the urban liberals are more accepting of others because they actually live with diverse people instead of moving away from anyone that looks or thinks differently than them. And the rural living conservatives support a fascist demagogue who protects the status quo of white/male power. The broken system has failed the country and now the fear and rage filled half of the country has put itself in a dire situation, and the rest of the world is laughing at us.

See? These kinds of statements help no one and further no discussion. It's just pushing what you believe the opposite sides' ideals onto them which leaves no room for anyone to have a starting point to respond to you.