Will there be mass protests / violence post-election day?

StupidMoniker is making some excellent arguments for your side. Why use something so weak as this? Governance by landmass? This makes no sense.

 

The one with more humans in it.

Again, why is surface area important again?

 

Because it's the United States not United People.

 

It's fine to make an EC argument based on the concept of states, etc. But Bobby is just posting now images of landmass, as if the Mojave Desert, for instance, is much more important to the United States of America than, say, Manhattan. Or as if the Badlands were hundreds of time more important to our political will than Houston and Dallas and their suburbs combined. Or, as if the arid scrub land of the Great Basin were to be thousands of times more representative of the political will of our populace than Chicago and Los Angeles combined. Prioritizing acreage over citizens is a completely intellectually bankrupt approach to discussing the topic, I think we could nearly all agree.

The "swiss cheese" map is further completely disingenuous because it ignores how truly purple a lot of the United States is, with lots of democratic voters in rural counties, and lots of conservative voters in urban counties. The oversimplification we all seem happy to embrace makes me more sick at my stomach than the triple helping of pie did.

The insipid graphic has nothing to do with the 50 states or really anything but some person having wasted a lot of time on photoshop, and then another group of poor sods having to discuss the original waste of time on the internet.

 

I've made those arguments as well. In fact, that's what I started out saying. All I got in return is talk about how states aren't real things and more talk about how large cities are awesome. I've branched out since then.

 

Not what I'm saying at all, but I'm glad that you are still failing to follow along. Good job.

 

Chinese Proverb: Humor sign of great intelligence.

 

I kind of doubt it. You haven't shown an ability to adequately follow along in conversation in the past. It's only made worse by the fact that you were displaying an understanding of the electoral college and the reasons it exists just a few days ago.....yet somehow now you appear to struggle with it. I mean, I guess you just naturally move towards being wrong even when you start out right.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to answer point by point, but your entire premise is wrong, which makes your entire post a straw man argument. Your premise is that the legislative branch is balanced. But we're supposed to be talking about the EC, not the legislative branch. We all know there is a relation between the EC and the legislative branch. We all know, too, that the EC and the legislative branch are not the same thing. So justifying the legislative branch does not necessarily justify the EC. You need to get away from relying on the legislative branch to justify a separate entity such as the EC.

You're talking about the legislative branch, not the EC. Sure: the House balances the Senate in the legislative branch, one body against one body. That's 1 vs. 1. On the other hand, 100 electoral votes v. 438 electoral votes is not the same. If you want to use the House and Senate as an example of balance, you would count the popular vote for 50% and the state vote for 50%. That's not how it works.

Not obvious at all. I thought you said there's balance, not one side is "weighed more heavily." There's no balance, the whole thing is a contrivance, and no one, including you, has justified the 1:4.38 ratio that yields ONE voice, not two, except to say "That's the way it is!'

You're just BS'ing with a stuffy style. "Thus should the states have a voice." Why? All the citizens of the states voted individually. All the individuals in WY or wherever voted individually for their WY local interests. So now this thing called "the state," whose citizens already voted individually, needs separate representation, because . . . that's the way it is! It's not even a reason.

Yeah, and see above, the Senate and the House are actually 1 v. 1. The two bodies have equal weight. You get that? The Senate has a voice, the House has a voice. That's two voices. That's your balance, between two voices. The EC has one voice. Where's balance in having one voice? Oh, the 100 balances the 438 because, obviously, let me guess . . . . "That's the way it is!"

You're looking at the federal level. We're talking about the state level on this point. Forget Washington. A congressman is elected by popular vote. You are fine with that. Why? Some areas within his/her district will be cheated, supposedly, by relying on a popular vote. Right? Popular vote is not the way to choose a representative, according to you, right? And yet that's how we do it for pretty much every elected official except the president. (Try to forget Washington for a second. Imagine that a Congressman is a Trump, elected by popular vote.)

Yep, I'll agree with you there about the legislative branch. But again, the legislative branch is different from the EC. For example, the EC has one voice, while the legislative branch has two voices (House and Senate).

Your entire argument relies on the "balance" of the Senate and the House. The Senate=1. The House=1. 1=1. That's balance in the legislative branch. But in the EC, 100 does not equal 438. That's not balance. The EC speaks with one voice, not two, like the legislative branch does. No one in this thread has justified the EC ratio of 1:4.38 except to look away from the EC and say "Well the legislative branch is balanced! And that's the way it is!" It's a straw man argument. I keep talking about the EC, and you keep saying "But the legislative branch. . . !" They are not the same thing.

 

^^ I have no idea what this guy said. I think he copied and pasted the same 5 sentences over and over, just in different order.

It feel likes reading one of those 100 question personality tests in which half the questions are worded in a different way.

The pro's and con's for the EC have been hammered out by multiple people. StupidMoniker articulated it the best and explains why we have it and why its not going anywhere.

This whole notion about how its unfair and how twice in the last 16 years the popular vote lost is getting ridiculous. This isn't some anomaly. Young people from rural areas are flocking to urban areas. 100 years ago, it was more diverse than it is today. The winner-takes-all system exposes the lopsidedness of states like California, New York and Texas having a huge share of the population in their MSA's.

Personally, I think the EC system is much more fair than the top 15 MSA's electing the president. If we went with the plurality voting, our party lines would not be divided up between urban and rural as it is now. Politicians would instead focus on the well being of a state than the people. Politicians would pander to the people of California, New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois.

 

You often respond by saying "I don't understand . . ." and it is not compelling at all. In fact, it's pretty much the least convincing way to begin an argument.

So, in the process of responding to a post you admittedly "have no idea about," you claim that if we go away from the EC to a popular vote, then politicians will focus on the states more. This puts you in contradiction with StupidMoniker and Bobbythegreat, who want state interests to be protected. While you believe that the popular vote will increase focus on "the well-being of a state," Stupid and Bobby worry that the popular vote will sacrifice the well-being of the states. You need to hash it out with them. Personally, I don't think we can make policy by imagining how future candidates will campaign. Trump is a good example of how imagining outcomes fails severely.

In the meantime, I suggest you don't respond to me unless you do know what my posts mean. Otherwise, you may get confused, as you did in this case.

 

SMH are we still talking about this? Honestly, this thread would be a good argument for better funding of public schools.

 

Oh snap! You shook your head.

 

First off, its my perspective. Bobby, SM and myself do not share a collective brain unlike .... anyways.

You are correct, the EC keeps ALL the states in perspective.

As it is now, the left panders heavily towards the minorities. Then they like to promise free things, like college, to those who have little experience in the real world.

With plurality voting method, they would pander heavily to certain states (again, not ALL). They would promise economical growth and security to the larges swath of people in specific states. As some said, who really cares about extremely rural states like Wyoming who have nothing to offer? Less density populated states would get the shaft. As once said, Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep asking whats for dinner. When people say Wyoming and Idaho don't matter, this is exactly what this is referring to.

 

I didn't say that.

And you like how it is now. I see.

Well guess what: CA didn't vote for Trump, and CA "got the shaft." So we have to pick: should WY "get the shaft," or should CA "get the shaft." I think the state with more people should win; you think the state with less people should win. I'll leave it at that.

 

Should 20 states "get the shaft" or should 30 states "get the shaft"?

Answer - California should get their way because that's the result I wanted. California is more important than 30 states who disagree with the way I wanted the election to go.

 

The majority of the people should win the vote, just like they do in elections for senators, congresspersons, mayors, school board, sheriff, etc.

 

Get over it. The EC isn't going anywhere. Not because the Constitution says so, but because people actually agree with the intention. Quit acting like the POTUS is some dictatorship. Your local and state elections are much more important.