Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[Nationalist]

50 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Lol yeah good luck with that.

I would have no desire to see that happen.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Would you rather have the smaller states leave the republic? Because that's what would happen.

And how do you know ^this?

It may have been true at the formation of the nation, but we've seen before what happens when states try to leave.

Now they know better.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

It is what it is...sans your moral judgement.

Thanks for admitting that morality doesn't matter TO YOU.

Explains your support for Trump and his crimes. 🤮

[Aristides]

States could change it by just awarding EC votes proportionally according to the state's popular vote. Say in a case like Montana, one candidate got between 50 and  60% of the popular vote, they would get 3 EC votes and the other candidate would get 1 vote, instead of winner take all. Doesn't get rid of the EC but definitely more democratic.

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

Great. Just one more way that Walz is better aligned with and better representative of the American people, 63% of whom want the same thing.

One person, one vote. A rancher in Wyoming should have the same voice as a dev in San Francisco. 

 

Oh look , the lefty supports the tyranny of the majority. what a surprise  

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

No, so that the majority of voters can have a say. 

The majority of voters do have a say. 

But the leadership can't be based on just majority votes.  There are other factors. which is why the college was created in the first place, and EVERY country has some sort of similar model built in.  In canada in the last two elections the party with the most popular votes did Not get to form gov't. 

If the us was "one big state" with no individual states with their own individual needs and interests then it might make sens but that is NOT the case. 

The current system is in fact fair. which is why there's three 'houses', the president the congress and the senate. 

If democrats were smart what they'd REALLY shoot for is limiting the powers of the president in the first place rather than trying to find ways to cheat the system. 

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...so the people in large cities can dictate the nation's leadership?

Are you thinking that the electoral college makes people care about rural areas?

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

the president the congress and the senate.

Lol

[Matthew]

On 10/9/2024 at 1:33 PM, gatomontes99 said:

The harris camp wants to get rid of the EC.

Old news. Being opposed to federalism and preferring democratic principles is an idea in the US older than the Constitution.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

And how do you know ^this?

It may have been true at the formation of the nation, but we've seen before what happens when states try to leave.

Now they know better.

Thanks for admitting that morality doesn't matter TO YOU.

Explains your support for Trump and his crimes. 🤮

Go cry to your momma...

[Nationalist]

16 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Are you thinking that the electoral college makes people care about rural areas?

No. I'm saying the electoral collage helps the less densely populated areas have a say in American governance. 

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

No. I'm saying the electoral collage helps the less densely populated areas have a say in American governance. 

The grossly unfair distribution of Senate seats isn't enough for these places?

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No. I'm saying the electoral collage helps the less densely populated areas have a say in American governance. 

The POTUS is only one job in the government. The house and senate are elected as always without the EC. Is there any logical reason why this one role should not be elected by a popular vote? One job. Shouldn't it go to the person supported by the most Americans?

In most cases:
If someone runs for governor, they must win at least a plurality of votes.

If someone wins for mayor, they must win at least a plurality of votes.

If someone runs for dogcatcher, they must win at least a plurality of votes.

But for some reason some people still think that a candidate who receives fewer votes moves in the Oval Office. 

 

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

The POTUS is only one job in the government. The house and senate are elected as always without the EC. Is there any logical reason why this one role should not be elected by a popular vote? One job. Shouldn't it go to the person supported by the most Americans?

In most cases:
If someone runs for governor, they must win at least a plurality of votes.

If someone wins for mayor, they must win at least a plurality of votes.

If someone runs for dogcatcher, they must win at least a plurality of votes.

But for some reason some people still think that a candidate who receives fewer votes moves in the Oval Office. 

 

I already explained. Pay attention. 

[Hodad]

Just now, Nationalist said:

I already explained. Pay attention. 

No, you didn't. And you can't. 

It's a vestigial feature from a bygone era that is functionally broken and at this point only does more harm to our political system. 

There is no justification for a Wyoming resident to have 3x more say in who becomes POTUS than an "all created equal" citizen of CA.

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Are you thinking that the electoral college makes people care about rural areas?

 

No? how would that even make sense.  Is there a state that has nothing but rurral areas???

 

[Fluffypants]

If the electoral college was abolished then politicians would stop caring about rural areas and would pander to the urban areas. We don't know what would change without the electoral college Liberals just assume they would win but the strategy would change for politicians.

There is an old saying, The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2024 by Fluffypants

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

If the electoral college was abolished then politicians would stop caring about rural areas and would pander to the urban areas. We don't know what would change without the electoral college Liberals just assume they would win but the strategy would change for politicians.

There is an old saying, The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't.

I think it's more of a case that politicians would stop caring about anything other than the very largest population centers such as California. Places like main would get no vote whatsoever ever. 

Democracy needs to be tempered. It is important that democracy is restricted to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Virtually every country has recognized this and puts in place checks and balances in order to limit the tyranny of the majority while still giving access to significant democracy. The electoral college is one such balance. 

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No. I'm saying the electoral collage helps the less densely populated areas have a say in American governance. 

In a normal one person = one vote situation, everyone's vote contributes to having a say. In the electoral college system, most people's votes for president do not count for anything.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Matthew said:

In a normal one person = one vote situation, everyone's vote contributes to having a say. In the electoral college system, most people's votes for president do not count for anything.

That's just simply not true. 

First off  if two white people and a black person were voting on whether to bring back slavery, "everyone" would have a say. But that doesn't make it good or fair. Democracy MUST be tempered to be fair. 

And secondly in BOTH systems the same number of people get a say. 

If you feel it's unfair then the solution is NOT to get rid of the college but rather to give more powers back to the states themselves. Then cali can live like cali wants and texas can live like texas. 

But what YOU want is to have total power over ALL people to force them to do and say what YOU feel is best.  So it's not about fairness with you, it's about control. 

 

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh look , the lefty supports the tyranny of the majority. what a surprise  

 

So you prefer the tyranny of the minority. No surprise.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you prefer the tyranny of the minority. No surprise.

Look man, nobody expects you to be bright. We've pretty much accepted you not the sharpest stick in the forest. But surely even you can do better than that.

Trying to claim that by leveling the playing field states like maine will somehow have tyranny over states like California is just stupid. At no point will the minority have an advantage over anyone.  But it does cut the majority's dominance.  

I guess that really bothers you. 

And as far as tyrrany of the minority goes, that's more like the left wing's love of calling for reparations and the like  

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Democracy MUST be tempered to be fair. 

Obviously. But, what we're taking about is democracy where actual people matter most and get to vote vs federalism where artifical state territories matter most and get to vote.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

BOTH systems the same number of people get a say. 

A total of 538 people get to vote. I know you're bad at math but I think you can figure out that 300 million would be a higher number if all adult citizens could vote for president.

Furthermore, in the state contests to choose electors, once a party gets past 50%, none of the other party's votes have any say in the election. And since most states are non-competitive, only the votes in 5 or 6 states actually determine the outcome.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Obviously. But, what we're taking about is democracy where actual people matter most and get to vote vs federalism where artifical state territories matter most and get to vote.

simply not true.  If there was no college and just one common vote would that mena the artificial state mattered most?

Each region has it's own unique culture and cirucmstance, and they should make a decision within their state before their state makes a decision with all the other states.  they have more individual representation in the from of senators and congresspeople.  By making a decision on a regional level for a presidential candidate they are building a consensus opinon for that state when it comes to a mandate and that's important. 

In the end this is how EVERY democratic system works, it's just how 'granular'  you want to get. If it were election by popular vote the losing side would always argue they weren't represented.  And presidential candidates could ignore states that are split and focus only on promises and campaigns where they could increase their vote more, because instead of a split vote being a missed opportunity it's now a tie and there' s probably not a lot of extra votes to be grabbed. 

Democracy is a flawed system at best It's often been said that it's a terrible system who's sole redeeming value is that it's better than all the others. 

Creating a regional block decided by indvidual voters is probably the best way especially given the ability to elect congress and the senate on a much more granular level. It's a good mix of regional representation and individual representation

[Nationalist]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, you didn't. And you can't. 

It's a vestigial feature from a bygone era that is functionally broken and at this point only does more harm to our political system. 

There is no justification for a Wyoming resident to have 3x more say in who becomes POTUS than an "all created equal" citizen of CA.

It levels the playing field. I'm sorry that doesn't fit into your desires but...

Tough.

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, Matthew said:

In a normal one person = one vote situation, everyone's vote contributes to having a say. In the electoral college system, most people's votes for president do not count for anything.

You Libbies...always trying to stack the deck. Try playing by the rules for a change. 

[gatomontes99]

Wallz is the worst.

 

Lmao