This simply isn't true unless it was done in a way where votes weren't split by congressional district, which seems unlikely. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-the-popular-vote-by-5-points-and-still-lost/ It's a broken system, you shouldn't be able to have nearly 3 million more votes than your opponent and lose an election, Trump won by the rules that are in place but they've proven to be terrible rules multiple times now over the past 20 years. And Bobbythedope's argument of "derp mob rule!!" is insanely stupid considering that just about every other elected official is chosen by this so-called "mob rule," but I guess for some reason it only applies to voting for president.
No one is surprised that you would fail to understand the reasons for the electoral college even after I spelled them out in the most easy to understand way possible. The reason we have a representative system in the first place is so that people like you have more intelligent people speak for them because we can't expect everyone to understand the reason things are the way they are. We want as little input as possible from the unwashed masses while still giving them some say. There is no election at all that determines ANYTHING in this country by a national popular vote. When you say that "every other elected official is chosen by this "mob rule", you fail to understand that NONE of those elections are chosen by people from a different state. The presidential election is no different. You vote in your state for your representatives who vote for president on your behalf just like you vote for Congressmen to do the same. There's nothing different at all. The reason we do things this way is because people from different states have different issues that they care about and we want a system to where as many of these different issues as possible can be represented in the presidential election. Anyway, you guys can feel free to throw a fit about a system that you fail to understand is a good thing but it's never going to change and that's a good thing. If you left these kinds of things up to the whims of people like yourself, you'd choose a monarch or emperor before long while convincing yourselves that you were doing the smart thing.
That's an absolute crock, and it isn't holding butter. You clearly know damned near next to nothing, certainly about the Left. The "Left" today isn't as far to the "Left" as it once was, and the "Right" is so far to the "Right" that Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been able to sniff the GOP nomination today. He would be seen as too moderate for the extreme Right that controls today's Republican Party. I wish you were an exception, but at least when it comes to D&D, you're a good example of the shocking ignorance on display here from the GOP "Right." Outright ignorance combined with an eager desire to repeat lies, with no apparent interest in learning the truth. That's you, kiddo, in the flesh. With all respect due.
Shocking, guy on far left thinks people on the right are the ones who are extreme while he believes his own views are moderate. The hypocrisy of those on the fringes is always fun no matter which side they are on.
I dont agree with the congressional district split at all in regards to the EC. It should be divided up and a candidate should be given one EC per whole divided percentage achieved. The remainder EC should be granted to the majority candidate. (Eg: If there are 10 EC's, candidate A has 62% of the state vote, they get 6 EC's, Candidate B has 28% of the vote, they get 2 EC's and Candidate C has 11%, they get 1 EC's. The remainder goes to the majority, Candidate A for a total of 7 EC's.) The goal is not to favor the popular vote, but to give the minority vote a stronger voice in the election. If im in one of the extreme states like California or Montana, the current system discourages me from voting. That said, the system isn't broken. It doesn't matter if a candidate wins by 10 points. And these aren't 'rules'. You keep implying the POTUS should be elected by popular vote by stating the rules are terrible, as if its some sort of loophole. You're only expounding on your lack of understanding on why this system is in place. As its been explained many times over. Our country was founded on the principle of the federal government answers to the state, and the state answers to the (local) people. This is the basic principle of States Rights. You can disagree with this form of government and that is perfectly fine. When you state you prefer popular vote over the EC vote, you are really stating you want to do away with States Rights. If thats what you really want, then that is your opinion. However I like the state I reside in and I REALLY appreciate the fact we have a large variety of states with different rules. It pisses me off when one side is constantly trying to force everyone else to abide by their rules and their way of life.
I'm not sure that's completely true given that in this last election we had 3 "extreme states" vote differently than they have in a LONG time. It would be similar to having Texas go blue. The current system works, just like it always has. Those upset about the system are upset because it didn't work the way they wanted it to this time around so they want a system that would have given them the result they wanted. It's really nothing more than that. If Republicans had lost the election the way Democrats did then you could expect them to be the ones upset about the system and Democrats (and me) being the ones defending it for working as it was intended to.
Tell us the characteristics of the D&D non Trump supporters like myself and Deck that are so extreme? What is so extreme about normal every day liberals that threatens societal norms, and the wellbeing of America? Because I can make a pretty damn good case of history showing the affects of hyper nationalism and doing some pretty major damage to countries. Even now in present day let's compare countries with far right policies and those seen as far left. Tell me what is better about Russia than Canada? Tell me what about our values is so extreme that it will lead to what exactly...?? The US looking like Canada with slightly higher taxes and universal health care? I don't want the US to be Canada but even if I did, are we really sitting here trying to equate those ideals to an equivilent of the Right wing utopia the alt Right (which is an actual group where there is no such thing as an organized alt left) to that of whatever life would look like if folks like myself and Deck had a country where our "extreme" views became policy??
If you were capable of seeing the downside to extreme leftist policy, then you wouldn't be one yourself. That's something everyone out on the fringes has in common. They are only capable of seeing flaws in other extremists but never themselves.
You didn't answer my question as to what traits do we possess which are extreme and dangerous. Extreme right actions?? ... do you want to talk about reversal of human rights, gun obsession, pulling back LGBT rights, pulling back care of the poor, suppressing womens rights, polluting the planet, economic system that heightens corporate greed, religious favoritism, and blatant racism and ethnic cleansing etc? Extreme right actions lead to extreme positions on the above mentioned. Most of which could be viewed as dangerous if taken to extremes. The Right pursues these policies, and that's a fact. I'm just wondering if there is a left equivilency that folks like myself are heading towards, I want to know what actions those could lead to which are so damning.
I've already alluded to the fact that we do have situations in which more than a simple majority is required. Some of your reasoning doesn't pan out. 3% overruling 97%?? Come on, that's bullshit and you know it. Going to a popular vote is NOT the equivalent of that. However, given that it's mathematically possible to win 79% of the popular vote and still lose the election, something ain't right. Giving California, New York, etc. more electoral votes does not take away from Wyoming or Delaware. A close race could still take place and a swing state could still make the difference. The current Electoral College System does not proportionally allot electoral college votes. That's my point. You can keep the EC, just make the ratio more equal to the population. Each individual Wyoming vote weighs 3.6 times more than an individual Californian’s vote. Just because you don't like those liberals in CA doesn't mean you should lessen the value of their vote this dramatically. Should be more like .5 times more, or 1.0 times more, not 3.6. That's ridiculous. (BTW, I voted for Bush in 2000 and although I was happy Bush won, him not winning the popular vote never sat well with me. Just seemed wrong- based on every other situation in life I've experienced with voting- class president, NBA all-star, etc.).
It's funny how you say that it's BS to point out that your mob rule system would allow 3% of the country to overrule the 97%....and then repeat your part about how 79% of the popular vote could lose the election in the electoral college.....They are both mathematical extremes to show what can happen in a system. Both are true and honestly I'm more fine with the extreme that has the majority of states overruling the majority of the population rather than a few cities overruling the vast majority of states. The more populous states already have a built in advantage in the system, you just want to expand that advantage because it wasn't enough to make a terrible candidate win.
When you are talking about the extreme left, you are talking about those who want to create a nanny state....even if they don't realize that's what they are supporting. They are supporting policies that will make more people dependent on the state to survive which opens the door for all kinds of bad things. It's funny you bring up things like LGBT rights, you don't get MORE rights from stripping power from the people and giving it to the government, but that's always what the extreme left seeks to do. Now that said, there are those on the right who seek to do the same, and when we get down to it, Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same these days. They both want to expand the government in order to push their narratives, morality, and their preferred way of life. If you can't see the dangers of expanding government in these ways....well it's probably because you are pretty ate up with propaganda. The fact that a Socialist ran for president as a Democrat shows just how far left the left has gone lately. That's something that would have been considered ridiculous up until this point. When you talk about how far right some on the right have gone, you aren't always wrong, but you just fail to see your extremism at the same time. Both sides have been pushed apart in the last 8-10 years. The left has moved left, the right has moved right. That's what happens when you have a decade of divisiveness.
And honestly, I'm not sure the right has moved all that far to the right so much as they have just become more accepting of big government Republicans who push for the same type of government expanding BS the Democrats push for only they want to use it differently. There aren't many true small government conservatives left these days....and the ones who still exist usually call themselves Libertarians because the Republican party is no place for them.
No substance and still you didn't answer dobro. I'm expecting a condescending, "I've tried explaining matters to you by typing a lot but not really saying anything. But that's okay. You're just a brainwashed dolt and I'm superior for pointing out that everything is the same. I think I'm contributing to discussion by pointing out the same thing over and over again but I'm really not. I am superior though because I'm not you guys. I'm not liberal or rightwing. I am a unique snowflake with unique political thoughts that are always right." dobro was able to point out specific policies that the GOP pushes that affect daily lives. You wrote four paragraphs basically saying the same thing that you always say like it's some unique insight that we're all oblivious to seeing. "The left and right are the same." He asked you specifically which left wing policies create a nanny state and you just spout more of the, "it's all the same" without citing anything. Not one thing.
Mathematically possible to get 79% and still lose? Perhaps. But if that even comes close to happening, we have much bigger problems on our hands than the EC. Im sure our country will be on the brink of civil war if that ever happens. EC's are not handed out arbitrarily like candy to a bunch of kids. You understand its driven by population. Populations change quite a bit over 10 years, so while Wyoming my appear 3 times weighted more one election, it could go the opposite way the next census. As of 2015, the EC favors the following states the most: Rhode Island, Wyoming, W Virgina, Nebraska, Vermont and DC. (in order) The least favored states are: Montana, Delaware, S Dakota, Idaho, Oregon, and Iowa. (in order). The three that follow as the average is California, N Dakota and Kansas. Essentially for every 720k people in your state, you get a representative. It has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. By your logic, just because Wyoming is weighted at 3x (your number), which is 3 EC's, California should be balanced and be give 25% more EC's to counter, with a increase of 13 EC's. All you're doing is twisting your math around to make a point. As it stands, California has over 2x (55 ECs) as much representation as the 13 (24EC's) smallest states combined ... and you're still demanding California get more representation and complaining smaller states have a stronger representation.
But you are making a point about equivalency in extremism. I'm trying to understand what that means on the left. If we are talking about an equivilent Alt left, by your standard you saying that Bernie voters are on an equivilent level to those that would vote for Richard Spencer the actual leader of the Alt Right. And as for the "Nanny State"... I hear this all the time from my friends on the right, and I can't tell you how many times I hear them b**** and complain about people on welfare and hear the fake stories (borrowed from right wing sites) about how they saw some black lady buying lobster tails with food stamps. We've all heard our racist uncle or whoever tell that type of fabricated story that at the end of the day is about entitlement. I challenge you to go volunteer at the food bank in downtown Houston like I have and actually meet those folks on food stamps. Get to know them and hear their story and come back and tell me all of them are happy to live in a Nanny State where they live on government handouts. It's this right wing mentality I hear all the time that just Isn't accurate. I personally would love the idea of a smaller government but strong liberal democratic rights. (I loved hearing Mark Cubans idea for using more AI tech to decrease some govt jobs). But I still believe in Rights to everyone. Health care access for example ... is a right to me. Clean air and water....a right. Fair elections without Discrimination .... a right. Those aren't government handouts imo. Thomas Jefferson said it best about how "all men being created equal" which was a Declaration of Independence after the American Revolution where America truly became a Liberal Democracy. Extreme Right positions to me just don't live up to that notion. I don't know what is so extreme about that, but I'm curious to learn how I'm wrong. *Meanwhile in right wing Chechnya.... there is a "Gay Crackdown" where gay men are being rounded up, beaten, and torchured. I don't mean to want an apology but just think a little next time you want to equate moral equivilency of the Extreme right to those who just so happen to not support Trump's agenda and care about strong rights under a truly Liberal Democracy.
Well if we want to talk about moral equivalency that changes the whole subject. I don't think there is any doubt that those on the extreme left THINK that what they are supporting would lead to the greater good which makes it a moral stance by most standards.....the problem is that they are super naive and don't realize that's not what happens in those instances. Look at what communism has done pretty much everywhere it's been tried and you'll see what happens when fools naively try to create a workers paradise by stripping power from the people and giving it all to the government. They lead their country to ruin with all the best intentions in the world. Honestly it's never a good idea to try and discuss the morality of extremists because most of the worst things to happen in world history have been done with the best intentions. The only conversation that should be had is the effectiveness of a policy or stance.
No I think it's good we are talking about what extremism really means. Id just appreciate a little more fairness from those on the Right creating the narrative of equivilency for everyone that might attend a rally or town hall. I'm a history buff and know what socialism can do to a country with the wrong leaders and lack of balance of power. However what will keep our Democratic leaders and even socialist leaders like a hypothetical Bernie President from changing our country is our institutions put in place to give limitations to power and checks and balances. Oddly enough nobody has tested the limits to those powers like Donald Trump has thus far. That should be a red flag to those like yourself who don't want to see Democracy turn into Autocracy, or Democracy turn into socialism turn into Communism. The same institutions that are supposed to be checking power to Trump are there to also prevent a Bernie Sanders type from turning America into a Communist state.
How is wanting equal rights for all giving government more power? Why are you talking about extremist policies when dobro was asking you specifically about what usual liberal policies are so damning to the integrity of the United States? You mention Communism as example or something yet I don't know of a single Communist supporter in this thread on either the left or right side. It's a bit of a head scratcher why you'd even discuss that and still discuss extremism when he was asking about what specific policies liberals typically support that are extreme? I get that extremism is bad Bobby. You have me there. What policies specifically that liberals typically support are so extreme and go with your whole best of intentions spiel you wrote?
Well that's the problem though isn't it? You talk about the institutions that prevent that sort of thing from happening, but those institutions are being attacked all the time by both major parties who see those institutions as being in the way of their acquiring more power. Hell right now you've got a lot of people wanting to completely change the system and eliminate the institution of the Electoral College simply because it didn't give them the result they wanted....I think if we normalize these beliefs, that the system is old and outdated and in need of being scrapped, it's only a matter of time before we're in a really bad situation. I know that the "slippery slope" argument is kind of an annoying one, but history has seen too many countries slide down the hill to ignore it completely. I don't want it going in the direction of Authoritarians (Trump) any more than I want it going in the direction of Socialists (Bernie), I see both as taking steps in the direction of Totalitarianism and to me the balance that must be maintained is between Anarchy and Totalitarianism, not between Authoritarianism and Socialism. I see both as enemies of Liberty and thus the American people....and yet one is popular among extremists in the Republican party and the other is popular among extremists in the Democrat party. As such, both parties are taking the country in the same wrong direction.
