I can only confidently guarantee that the prostitute you end up making tender love to (lol) will shower longer than she usually does after your 5 shameful minutes of disappointing her
I am so fucking sick of seeing this retarded argument. I really don't get why so many people repeat this stupid shit, it's like they've never bothered to even spend 5 minutes researching the subject.
Most of the country is already ignored, including all of the states you're claiming the electoral college help, literally every election comes down to the same swing states, everyone else is ignored, including larger states.
The electoral college literally creates the very problem you're claiming it prevents you fucking mouth breathing retard.
Sure, I'm more so going after the fact people constantly try to defend the EC by saying "but small states will be ignored" as if that isn't already the case.
Most of the country is already ignored, including all of the states you're claiming the electoral college help, literally every election comes down to the same swing states, everyone else is ignored, including larger states.
This isn't true. I know you are like 12 and think you have sooo much life experience because you've live through 2 elections, but the important election states change all the time. Only since the last 2 decades has California gone blue.
And now with the last election, we've seen Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are all states in play now.
A reactionary feudal based electoral system that nullifies the election when it's out of touch with the will of the elite and appoints a more reactionary candidate instead
We never see two different watermarkcels at the same time though, which is what I'd expect to happen if there were larpers as well. I'm afraid that all this tism is genuine šØ
You never learned about the Great Compromise in school, didja son?
Have you ever thought that perhaps, there's a reason that we call Wyoming a state rather than a Province like Canada calls their districts of their country?
Have you ever thought that perhaps, there's a reason that we call Wyoming a state rather than a Province like Canada calls their districts of their country?
80 IQ mestizos from California who are here because their fat illiterate mother who works at a dry cleaners ran across the border should have 10 votes they're the REAL Americans
Under the electoral college both California and Wyoming's effective voting power is basically 0. On paper Wyoming's votes are slightly weighted. But that all goes out the window basically due to the winner take all system. It's irrelevant how much weighting your votes have if the distribution of winner take all votes is unfavorable to you. The actual discrepancies in voting power under the electoral college are much, much larger than than the proportion of Wyoming electors per person to that of California. Like in Wyoming your vote is trash, in Ohio your vote is worth hundreds of times more. Really the value of your vote is best given by this infographic that shows electoral spending per state. An Ohioan, Pennsylvanian, or Floridians vote was worth a lot. Anyone in a state without a dollar sign may as well not vote.
That's why it's kind of stupid for California's to always shit on Wyoming. Really the two should be allies in this fight.
It is the red states that are really entitled. They think that they have a god given right to control this country regardless of whatever anyone else thinks. The voice of the American people is irrelevant, we are a piece of territory that the tyrannical red stat minority just use as a piggy bank to fund themselves. Like the way that medieval kings were "King of France", as in sovereign over a piece of land, rather than "King of the French". The French were just tag alongs that didn't matter.
We are talking about the difference between having some illusion that your vote matters, and allowing the top 4 cities to control who is elected as the nation's leader. Who wins an election doesn't exactly matter.
If you think people would stomach this type of system for long without violence you should just consider your own naivety.
Yeah imagine refusing to elect the candidate the people want over and over again and shoving a different one that some minority elite faction supports down our throats again and again and thinking that will result in stability. I've lived a third of my life at this point under awful, unelected right wing presidents due to the electoral college. I am mad as hell that the elites keep on using the electoral college to support warmongers who will keep their empire in place. We have race riots now, did we have that 20 years ago before the genius of the electoral college decided to start shoving rightists down our throat over and over again? Conveniently always the people that whites want, never anyone else in the country. We don't fucking matter. Might as well take all the votes of black people and shred them for all its worth. Probably your fucking dream. Always favoring the interests of whites. Always favoring rural interests. No one else is even considered by our fake fascist government, no one else matters to the elites that control our centers of power. And it is only natural that we are taking to the street and breaking things, that's what fucking happens when you ignore the voice of the people over and over again and appoint a candidate favorable to the elite instead of the one the people want.
None of this shit matters there is 0% chance of a Constitutional Convention and that Bill being passed in large states to give all their EC votes to the popular candidate once enough states pass it to reach 270 EC votes will never happen because you'd need 100% of the blue states and NH and others would never sign onto that and you'd also need a few Purple States. And it's so hypocritical: if you are so concerned about proportional representation California and New York, why don't you award your EC reps proportionately based on your own popular vote and not on who won 51% in your state? Is it because you don't believe in something unless you know it'll benefit you.
if you are so concerned about proportional representation California and New York, why don't you award your EC reps proportionately based on your own popular vote and not on who won 51% in your state?
a couple do. and some of have moved to award their EC votes to whoever wins the popular vote overall.
thing is, both ideas are pretty fucking lacking if 85% of EC votes arenāt following that example
No states award electoral college votes proportionally. A couple of states cast it by congressional district, but both are fairly homogeneous geographically and it's only ever meant one electoral vote or so either way.
There is going to come a time when we're going to stop asking nicely and following the rules. You'd best not test us and try and push us to that point like your currently trying to do. The American people will not tolerate their voice being ignored over and over again like it has been for the past 20 years, by the white right wing billionaire elite who control this country.
Apologies for seriousposting, but the electoral college needs to be fixed, not abolished.
The core concept is solid, but every presidential election is decided by Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, and everyone outside those states might as well stay home.
itād be 300% better if they just subtracted 2 votes from each state and made the rest proportional, but itās fundamentally a stupid fucking system for determining a central executive
There's no rounding here, simply better representation. A direct popular vote will mean a democrat will win every time and that republicans won't be represented at all. As their vote won't matter in a direct popular vote. As the vast majority of republicans are in rural areas where there's less of a population and liberals are often in the metro areas where there's a bigger center of population.
A popular vote system wouldn't change superdelegates, that's a piece of the Democratic primary and the Democratic party can decide who their candidate is going to be however they want.
I am saying to remove it with each state having its own popular vote and the winner there gets that states electoral votes. Its much harder for both parties to get who they want when they have no one to bribe.
That's not really true, if one of the other big states shifted it would upheaval those smaller states. Texas going blue changes the whole calculus. The other states count, they just don't swing so people pay as much attention. If you worked with 3 people and two of them always finished their work on time but one guy was a cointoss people would pay more attention to making the unreliable guy finish his shit but all three of them contributed.
They do occasionally, Texas could be in play soon, especially if Beto becomes the general candidate for the blues. The parties themselves shift over time and appeal to different subgroups, it's not like presidents are in the habit of ignoring what goes on in the most populous cities.
I honestly can't imagine why liberals want to get rid of the Electoral College so much. Actually, I'm playing stupid. I know why. Because once we get rid of it, California, Florida and New York would decide who rules the entire country.
And I've said this before, as a Native NYC dweller - Dear outsiders , do not trust any politician from NYC. Our entire local goverment is nothing but snakes and traitors and our people are stupid enough to keep voting for them ie; Cuomo.
Anyway, this thread reminded me. I have to change my voter registration from Democratic to No Party Preference.
I don't understand how counting straight votes would mean only 3 states decide who win, any less than having "battleground states" dictate who currently win anyway.
It makes FL very powerful. Also states that are very large and only slightly but comfortable tilted towards one side a tremendously valuable to that side. Like Texas in the last election. If a state leans heavily towards one side like CA they tend to waste a lot of votes and it basically cancels out.
Of course the EC is still good then because ONE STATE shouldn't be able to decide the election?! Nevermind that there are plenty of election under the electoral college where you could subtract one state and the results would've changed. Also, what happens if you subtract Texas from Trumps side? Oh look, he loses even fucking harder. He didn't even have one state that decided the election, he had like a negative number of states that decided the election for him. Just stupid beyond words. Just a bunch of people that resent California, literally it's the whining of babies.
California, especially Los Angeles needs to be glassed.
Gore Vidal, that glorious, erudite drama King once said that he lived in both California and Italy, so he didn't live in America at all.
If I ever move from Canada to the US, i'd rather move to Maine, Vermont or Montana. Lovely states.
An electoral campaign under popular vote would look sort of like a common music tour, you'd hit big cities on the coast yes but you'd also go to urban locations throughout the country in order to increase the likelihood that people near the metro area will be able to see you. Like the mountain states such as Wyoming probably won't get hit, but they don't get hit under the current system ever anyway.
If you spent all of your time in NYC and LA, it would be a waste. First off, NYC and LA combined are hardly even close to half the population. Maybe like 10%-15% combined. Second off people would eventually get bored and stop coming. That's why Taylor Swifts concerts do not consist of a bunch of shows in NYC and then a bunch of shows in LA. She hits Louisville, KY, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, DC, Cleaveland, Atlanta, Tampa, Detroit, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Arlington, TX. The end goal is to be able to get the most Americans to be able to see you. Which is the same goal you'd have in a presidential election.
Advocates of the neo-feudal system, essentially based on the electoral system of the Holy Roman Empire, massively exaggerate the amount of focus that would be put on large coastal cities. They want to make it seem massively disproportional to the makeup of America. Which is absurd of course, because under one man one vote the electoral power is exactly 1:1 proportional to the actual makeup of America. Their story about LA and NYC being all that would matter sounds absurd because it is absurd, the makeup of America population wise is not even nearly so focused on LA and NYC. If LA and NYC actually did have a large enough population that they'd basically control the election by itself, like 50% of the US living there, what they're saying would probably actually make sense, because everybody reading it would be a fucking LA or NYC person and they'd be like "well yeah of course we're literally basically the country". It seems absurd because that's not even at all the case. Like 90% of the country population wise is outside of those urban areas. Politicians would be ignoring 90% of the population under their imagination.
I'm talking about grungebot you mongoloid. I'm saying he isn't aware that we've done away with slave states, because he is somehow even greater of a mongoloid than you are.
āSlave statesā were the members of the early US that relied largely on slave labor for the early economy. Representatives from these states under the Articles of Confederation were quite salty about their lower voting populations and feared economic policies that would negatively affect them disproportionately, and as a result approached Constitutional Convention with an infamously entitled mindset wherein they refused to cooperate unless ensured undue representation.
The Electoral College was designed and to give the establishment an out if the people elected a demagogue
You have it flipped. It was Northern states that wanted slaves only counting for 3/5 instead of full.
3/5 compromise was a way to punish slave states, not help them.
And it doesn't matter that slaves couldn't vote. They certainly counted the population of other demographics that couldn't vote as well like women and children as obvious examples.
Are you retarded? New England states are fucking tiny with barely any population and places like Virginia were fucking huge. Northern states purposely tried to lower the population of slave states to their advantage.
I have no clue what the fuck you are trying to say because EC was not about slave vs free. It was about small vs big.
If it was about small vs. big then why did the largest state, Virginia, almost immediately turn to opposing federalist policies? And in fact Virginia could barely be convinced to support the constitution at all. There is a huge line of anti-federalist thought originating in Virginia, from Madison and Jefferson. Basically the only big Federalist to come from that state was Washignton. And Hamilton, the biggest federalist of them all, was from New York. Which at that time was not a very large state.
The debate didn't have barely anything to do about large states and small states and the factions largely never aligned along those lines. I have no idea why this narrative keeps getting repeated over and over again. The southern region was a minority, and it knew the rest of the union only barely tolerated its main form of economic producitivty, slavery plantations. It wanted a more confederated form of government to protect it's regional interests. Which included the largest state, Virginia. It was afraid that if the federal government grew too powerful, it would take away slavery from them in the national interest, so it wanted a weaker government to protect it's minority regional interests. Virginia itself I think was more concerned about the competition the federal government posed to its own immense power, than the power it could wield through the federal government. Because after all, regardless of how large it was, it was not a majority.
The part about who wanted to count slaves is true, but the only particularly populous Southern states were Virginia and the Carolinas. The rest were up north.
The southern states wanted the slaves to count fully with regards to representation, and for the white population to cast all of their votes. Basically any compromise on this issue would've effectively left the states with no voice. Compromising at 3/5 is like a brilliant symbol of just how dehumanized they were. Even though the northern states wanted them counted at zero, and there was basically no faction that really wanted to give them a vote.
That doesn't make them dehumanized because of this discussion. Lots of the population couldn't vote, not just slaves. Also at the time there was pretty much zero democracy anywhere in the world. You are applying a 2019 lens to what you are talking about.
And that's why it would immediately get torpedoed in the House of Representatives. Literally the senate has already tried to pass a proportional EC amendments to the constitution, they approved it and sent it to the house. The house took one look at it and told them to fuck off. That's how all attempts of this nature are going to go in the future. Why should large states agree to let themselves get fucked over even more unfairly than they currently are?
No, itās broken because itās extremely exploitable, extremely disproportionate towards states that are already overrepresented in the legislature, and serves literally no useful function.
But yes, the fact that it didnāt stop Trump reinforces the notion that it is not an effective tool in stopping demagogues, as originally intended. Not that Iād want that kind of failsafe anyway, that sounds undemocratic as fuck.
it does serve the extremely useful purpose of basically eliminating voter fraud, since it means that the only "states in play" are the ones which necessarily are going to have a lot of relatively moderate people from both parties available to monitor the results
that's pretty essential unless you want to nationalize the electoral system or otherwise establish a system where you can monitor every precinct with outside observers who are neutral on a national level (since regionally there's bound to be some zell miller-types who are OK with stuffing boxes for the "opposite" party)
forcing candidates to go after ~51% in like twenty states instead of ~90% in like ten does also mean that there is a little less regionalist retardedness and fewer candidates who are literally strom thurmond
it does serve the extremely useful purpose of basically eliminating voter fraud, since it means that the only "states in play" are the ones which necessarily are going to have a lot of relatively moderate people from both parties available to monitor the results
this makes no sense lol, youāre essentially making the case that getting accurate results from most states is a lost cause. and if that were the case, why bother with elections at all?
everyone from BOTH parties would have a stake in it. EVERY state would be āin play.ā
and there are other races besides president, you know. thereāll always be competitive races in each state.
nationalize the electoral system
having standards would be nice, but we still need to vote for Congress, governorsp, mayors, aldermen, etc
establish a system where you can monitor every precinct with outside observers who are neutral on a national level
this sounds fine too, oversight is good.
forcing candidates to go after ~51% in like twenty states instead of ~90% in like ten does also mean that there is a little less regionalist retardedness
ā90% in like ten statesā couldnāt be a viable strategy for both parties. Which ten states could have 90% go either way? Whoās the other 70% of the country gonna vote for?
Our entire local goverment is nothing but snakes and traitors and our people are stupid enough to keep voting for them ie; Cuomo.
You ever notice people in deep blue areas know all their politicians are evil but dont care? Say what you will about the GOP they dont seem to have this corruption problem.
Corruption easily clings to people who believe they're acting for the good of Others. It's one of those things that keeps happening in history but nobody ever seems to notice and people get really, really butthurt if you call them out for it.
So literally the entire coast of the entire United States, from Houston to Boston, from San Diego to Seattle, probably includes Anchorage and Honolulu as well. So a lot more than "NY and LA". And it's not even a majority. And that is apparently all that's going to matter and people are just going to ignore 60% of the people country who's votes county just as equally. Uh-huh.
How does it feel to be a triggered lefty? You do realize we don't even come close to a 100% voter turnout? The last presidential election was 56% voter turnout.
I have to change my voter registration from Democratic to No Party Preference
If you do this then you won't be able to vote in primaries, which basically means your vote is even more useless since the Democratic candidates in the general elections are going to win 99% of the time.
Lol california and nyc already have dominated and gatekept 99% of the media into their little club, and act like wyoming or iowa having minority repsentation in 1/7 of the races that matter is a heinous crime.
The Electoral College is important because it keeps Presidential elections to the states. A popular election would likely become a federal responsibility which is dangerous when you place the congress or executive in control of the presidential election. It also makes it easier to regulate the election. Imagine the 2000 election which was very close, how would you handle a recount? Electoral college allows us to break down the vote state by state.
A popular election would likely become a federal responsibility which is dangerous when you place the congress or executive in control of the presidential election.
The problem with deciding Presidential elections via popular vote is that candidates would naturally campaign in urban areas with big media markets and their policies would follow suit.
I like how Yang and republicans/conservatives essentially advocate for political equivalent of gibsmedats because of, suddenly, the richer and more successful NYC/California/Florida would ensure that conservacucks wouldn't win.
It's a pretty smart strategy for a person actually trying to win. In recent polls likely Dem primary voters have indicated their #1 criterion is 'electability'. If they see this guy polling well in the general population, it helps him in the primary.
Imagine a bunch of these blue states pass laws that give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Then 2020 rolls around and Trump wins the popular vote but loses (under the old rules) the electoral College, only for those new laws to apply and California's gotta give 55 to Daddy. Lord, the drama.
The interstate compact only kicks into effect when a majority of states electoral college wise join. It does not kick into effect before that because it would be pointless and would lead to obvious exploitation.
Donald Trump won 20 more senate derived electoral votes than HC. His seizure of power was not due to senate derived EC's and they barely have any effect on the process at all. Large states would never agree to proportional allocation of EC's because having a giant bloc of votes is one of the main benefits of the system to them, if they were allocated proportionally it would just plain benefit small states. And why would they agree to that?
Virtually all campaign stops take place in urban areas anyway? Urban areas in the largest most swingiest states. A presidential campaign under popular vote would look sort of like common music tour maps (except probably with a larger variety of locations, since presidential candidates primarily travel by air instead of bus), you'd try to hit all the largest cities but balance that with hitting a wide variety of cities across the country so that people could come and see you from all around close to that area.
If you just spent all your time in New York and LA, that would be an incredibly poor strategy because only like 10% of voters like in New York and LA. There's a reason Taylor Swift didn't just play in New York a bunch of times, play in LA a bunch of times, and cal it quits. It would be a retarded way to get a lot of people to see you.
Electoral college proponents like to claim that that would be the case because it's clearly absurd. It's clearly absurd because it's not at all true. The places that would be visited, would look like America. Instead of Ohio and Florida 200 times in a row. You know "small states".
206 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-03-18
I can only confidently guarantee that the prostitute you end up making tender love to (lol) will shower longer than she usually does after your 5 shameful minutes of disappointing her
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-18
I am so fucking sick of seeing this retarded argument. I really don't get why so many people repeat this stupid shit, it's like they've never bothered to even spend 5 minutes researching the subject.
Most of the country is already ignored, including all of the states you're claiming the electoral college help, literally every election comes down to the same swing states, everyone else is ignored, including larger states.
The electoral college literally creates the very problem you're claiming it prevents you fucking mouth breathing retard.
1 dazivostri 2019-03-18
** S E E T H I N G**
1 MikeStoklasaAlcohol 2019-03-18
We should just nuke all the redneck states tbh. What does Wyoming even do?
1 born_again_fred 2019-03-18
every state west of the Mississippi has fallen to moral decay, depravity, and mormonism. we need a do-over
1 SithisTheDreadFather 2019-03-18
You'd best think again, pardner. š¤
1 Cho-Dai 2019-03-18
You mean besides having commiefags SEETHING about getting completely PWNED by their 3 incredibly BASED electoral college votes?
1 MikeStoklasaAlcohol 2019-03-18
Cope. Trump won by more than 3 ECVs
1 Cho-Dai 2019-03-18
Cope. Here, let me hold your hand honey "/s"
1 MikeStoklasaAlcohol 2019-03-18
Based
1 running_out_of_alts 2019-03-18
I'm pretty sure they actually have a lot of the nukes. So that is what they do.
1 thirteendozen 2019-03-18
go off king
1 TurbulentSpace 2019-03-18
stfu turbo autist
1 NapoleonBonerpart5 2019-03-18
I'm starting a Go Fund Me campaign to raise money so you can get a more masculine jaw.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2019-03-18
Electorate isn't the root cause of that issue so much as the two party system and fptp.
And you know this š š°
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-18
Sure, I'm more so going after the fact people constantly try to defend the EC by saying "but small states will be ignored" as if that isn't already the case.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2019-03-18
Well, they do pay lip service now currently.
1 throwaway-familyhelp 2019-03-18
This isn't true. I know you are like 12 and think you have sooo much life experience because you've live through 2 elections, but the important election states change all the time. Only since the last 2 decades has California gone blue.
And now with the last election, we've seen Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are all states in play now.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-18
We're talking about recently moron, every election still comes down to a few swing states.
You are absolutely clueless.
1 sadderreborn 2019-03-18
Pls pls pls get suspended like ed
Drama would improve
1 boyoyoyoyong 2019-03-18
He had me at 1000 yang bucks a month
1 RedditRhodiumUser 2019-03-18
Neetbux*
1 Cho-Dai 2019-03-18
Yang + Neetbux = Yeetbux
1 193208123908 2019-03-18
Good Boy Points*
1 sadderreborn 2019-03-18
Good goy points*
1 boyoyoyoyong 2019-03-18
It's about time mayo's got in on the gibs
1 bearshark713 2019-03-18
The only thing we should redistribute to mayos is bullets.
1 El_Guero_Alto 2019-03-18
$ 1 0 0 0 A M O N T H
1 2029393029e9e 2019-03-18
Cuck bucks
1 The_Reason_Yang_Won 2019-03-18
1 shallowm 2019-03-18
not yet lil nigga
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2019-03-18
GET THAT BAG BOIII
1 FakeFactFan 2019-03-18
If I make an Office reference in this sub do i land in the shadow realm
1 MikeStoklasaAlcohol 2019-03-18
Oy vey
1 xlhat 2019-03-18
Of course he wants to change the system. Any surprises ?
1 Dildokin 2019-03-18
Hes not related to the (((family))), bloomfers were super tilted when he tweeted anti trump stuff a while back thinking he was an heir.
1 ineed750bucks 2019-03-18
That's the best name you could have to troll on twitter
1 Inceltiers 2019-03-18
Yes he is lol
His father is a famous businessman
1 check_fugazi_bro 2019-03-18
They're not even trying to hide it anymore
1 Infidel6 2019-03-18
A blue checkmark too.
VERIFIED ROTHSCHILD š¤
1 NormanImmanuel 2019-03-18
How can one candidate be so centrist?
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
A reactionary feudal based electoral system that nullifies the election when it's out of touch with the will of the elite and appoints a more reactionary candidate instead
Centrism
1 imgonnasay1 2019-03-18
https://i.imgur.com/VxR1NQC.png
1 xlhat 2019-03-18
šWhoresšaren'tšsexšworkersš.
1 ineed750bucks 2019-03-18
>GC
>CTH
>AHS
I smell radical centrism
1 arandomloser21 2019-03-18
This gimmick account got boring 6 accounts ago. I highly suspect that you're RPing as OG watermark for whatever dumb reason.
1 White_Dudeness 2019-03-18
We never see two different watermarkcels at the same time though, which is what I'd expect to happen if there were larpers as well. I'm afraid that all this tism is genuine šØ
1 newcomer_ts 2019-03-18
Twitter, as is tradition
So, democracy is when 2 (or, 3 - it is fucking Wyoming after all) people from Wyoming, presumably white, are worth one entitled brat from Cali.
Seems reasonable.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-03-18
Thatās nowhere as stupid as Wyoming having the same number of Senators as California.
1 Heyjoe1818 2019-03-18
It would behoove you to brush up on American civics.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
Wyoming should be the only state without Senators. Itās only fair
1 Heyjoe1818 2019-03-18
You have me there. Fuck Wyoming.
1 HuskyPupper 2019-03-18
Our founding fathers never intended the Senate to be proportional per capita for goodmreasons. Are they stupid?
1 kidfrommars 2019-03-18
yes
1 Awesometom100 2019-03-18
You never learned about the Great Compromise in school, didja son?
Have you ever thought that perhaps, there's a reason that we call Wyoming a state rather than a Province like Canada calls their districts of their country?
1 kidfrommars 2019-03-18
lol wtf
Australia has states, so what?
1 Lord_Giggles 2019-03-18
Weren't they called states for similar reasons originally?
1 running_out_of_alts 2019-03-18
Jesus Christ America is fucked. Do kids even have to go to school these days?
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-03-18
Implying California should even have one electoral vote.
1 Gobbllns 2019-03-18
80 IQ mestizos from California who are here because their fat illiterate mother who works at a dry cleaners ran across the border should have 10 votes they're the REAL Americans
1 bee_dl 2019-03-18
Opinion disregarded
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
Under the electoral college both California and Wyoming's effective voting power is basically 0. On paper Wyoming's votes are slightly weighted. But that all goes out the window basically due to the winner take all system. It's irrelevant how much weighting your votes have if the distribution of winner take all votes is unfavorable to you. The actual discrepancies in voting power under the electoral college are much, much larger than than the proportion of Wyoming electors per person to that of California. Like in Wyoming your vote is trash, in Ohio your vote is worth hundreds of times more. Really the value of your vote is best given by this infographic that shows electoral spending per state. An Ohioan, Pennsylvanian, or Floridians vote was worth a lot. Anyone in a state without a dollar sign may as well not vote.
That's why it's kind of stupid for California's to always shit on Wyoming. Really the two should be allies in this fight.
It is the red states that are really entitled. They think that they have a god given right to control this country regardless of whatever anyone else thinks. The voice of the American people is irrelevant, we are a piece of territory that the tyrannical red stat minority just use as a piggy bank to fund themselves. Like the way that medieval kings were "King of France", as in sovereign over a piece of land, rather than "King of the French". The French were just tag alongs that didn't matter.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2019-03-18
Popular vote would be great if you want to get to a civil war quicker.
1 ignavusaur 2019-03-18
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2019-03-18
Um sweaty the election isn't even until 2020 you need to think ahead.
1 troligarch 2019-03-18
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
thatās fucking retarded
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
hang on, didnāt we already go over why that was retarded?
or was that somebody else? are there TWO people who think this??
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2019-03-18
No. Like usual you are imagining a conversation in which you were right for once.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
Well the short version is it didnāt do anything to prevent the last one.
Are there people who think we would have gone to war if Gore had won 2000?
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2019-03-18
We are talking about the difference between having some illusion that your vote matters, and allowing the top 4 cities to control who is elected as the nation's leader. Who wins an election doesn't exactly matter.
If you think people would stomach this type of system for long without violence you should just consider your own naivety.
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-03-18
Good for Dramacoin.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
Yeah imagine refusing to elect the candidate the people want over and over again and shoving a different one that some minority elite faction supports down our throats again and again and thinking that will result in stability. I've lived a third of my life at this point under awful, unelected right wing presidents due to the electoral college. I am mad as hell that the elites keep on using the electoral college to support warmongers who will keep their empire in place. We have race riots now, did we have that 20 years ago before the genius of the electoral college decided to start shoving rightists down our throat over and over again? Conveniently always the people that whites want, never anyone else in the country. We don't fucking matter. Might as well take all the votes of black people and shred them for all its worth. Probably your fucking dream. Always favoring the interests of whites. Always favoring rural interests. No one else is even considered by our fake fascist government, no one else matters to the elites that control our centers of power. And it is only natural that we are taking to the street and breaking things, that's what fucking happens when you ignore the voice of the people over and over again and appoint a candidate favorable to the elite instead of the one the people want.
We are going to have war you piece of shit.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2019-03-18
Lol
1 zero237 2019-03-18
Based and centerpilled
1 Slump_o 2019-03-18
We should end democratic elections. In the meantime support of the electoral college is pretty good. Iām back with the #yanggang
1 hobocactus 2019-03-18
Once Yangis Khan has been elected there will be no more need for further elections
1 MtheDowner 2019-03-18
Oh shit son, we got the makings of a world leader right here.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
i mean isnāt disagreeing with someone on Twitter how Yangās political career started
1 MtheDowner 2019-03-18
Lol I know fuck all about Yang other than something something 1000 bucks
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
same, iām just assuming
1 ryandanegayin 2019-03-18
Ayy let's get this uhhh bag
1 heavenlytoaster 2019-03-18
You know he's qualified cuz he's retarded
1 TheButtholeOfBravery 2019-03-18
Ugh. YIKES. Bad take, Andrew. Be Better y'all. Be better.
1 ShotDesigner 2019-03-18
None of this shit matters there is 0% chance of a Constitutional Convention and that Bill being passed in large states to give all their EC votes to the popular candidate once enough states pass it to reach 270 EC votes will never happen because you'd need 100% of the blue states and NH and others would never sign onto that and you'd also need a few Purple States. And it's so hypocritical: if you are so concerned about proportional representation California and New York, why don't you award your EC reps proportionately based on your own popular vote and not on who won 51% in your state? Is it because you don't believe in something unless you know it'll benefit you.
1 HuskyPupper 2019-03-18
Wrong.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
a couple do. and some of have moved to award their EC votes to whoever wins the popular vote overall.
thing is, both ideas are pretty fucking lacking if 85% of EC votes arenāt following that example
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
No states award electoral college votes proportionally. A couple of states cast it by congressional district, but both are fairly homogeneous geographically and it's only ever meant one electoral vote or so either way.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
There is going to come a time when we're going to stop asking nicely and following the rules. You'd best not test us and try and push us to that point like your currently trying to do. The American people will not tolerate their voice being ignored over and over again like it has been for the past 20 years, by the white right wing billionaire elite who control this country.
1 accreditedEditor 2019-03-18
I can still get my Yang Bucks, right?
1 Doctor-Pavel 2019-03-18
once you're 18 and an American citizen
1 xlhat 2019-03-18
Si, I American citizen, por favour.
1 Why_yang_will_win 2019-03-18
1 Doctor-Pavel 2019-03-18
Yang Yatch raise the sails
1 BasicallyADoctor 2019-03-18
Yuh Yang Gang let ya nuts hang
1 gerradp 2019-03-18
Yatch? You mean yacht? Take your yangbuxx and get yourself a fucking remedial English tutor you fucking cretin
1 spookyguy109 2019-03-18
Hell yeah
1 MikeStoklasaAlcohol 2019-03-18
Based
1 LobotomistCircu 2019-03-18
Apologies for seriousposting, but the electoral college needs to be fixed, not abolished.
The core concept is solid, but every presidential election is decided by Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, and everyone outside those states might as well stay home.
1 leparsdon 2019-03-18
Pretty much.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
itād be 300% better if they just subtracted 2 votes from each state and made the rest proportional, but itās fundamentally a stupid fucking system for determining a central executive
1 FineLow 2019-03-18
It actually be a lot better if the popular vote in each state decided who got their electoral votes instead of superdelegates.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
why not just use a popular vote at that point instead of having to round it some weird way?
1 FineLow 2019-03-18
There's no rounding here, simply better representation. A direct popular vote will mean a democrat will win every time and that republicans won't be represented at all. As their vote won't matter in a direct popular vote. As the vast majority of republicans are in rural areas where there's less of a population and liberals are often in the metro areas where there's a bigger center of population.
1 Douggem 2019-03-18
A popular vote system wouldn't change superdelegates, that's a piece of the Democratic primary and the Democratic party can decide who their candidate is going to be however they want.
1 FineLow 2019-03-18
I am saying to remove it with each state having its own popular vote and the winner there gets that states electoral votes. Its much harder for both parties to get who they want when they have no one to bribe.
1 aqouta 2019-03-18
That's not really true, if one of the other big states shifted it would upheaval those smaller states. Texas going blue changes the whole calculus. The other states count, they just don't swing so people pay as much attention. If you worked with 3 people and two of them always finished their work on time but one guy was a cointoss people would pay more attention to making the unreliable guy finish his shit but all three of them contributed.
1 TheRobidog 2019-03-18
Yes, but they don't. So this "what if" is irrelevant.
1 aqouta 2019-03-18
They do occasionally, Texas could be in play soon, especially if Beto becomes the general candidate for the blues. The parties themselves shift over time and appeal to different subgroups, it's not like presidents are in the habit of ignoring what goes on in the most populous cities.
1 nanonan 2019-03-18
You think you can predict 47 states? Did you miss the last election?
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
There is no such thing as an underdog, there is only misestimation.
1 LobotomistCircu 2019-03-18
Like 43, bare minimum, yeah
1 Krombopulos-Snake 2019-03-18
Man. I'm more and more Team Yang every day.
I honestly can't imagine why liberals want to get rid of the Electoral College so much. Actually, I'm playing stupid. I know why. Because once we get rid of it, California, Florida and New York would decide who rules the entire country.
And I've said this before, as a Native NYC dweller - Dear outsiders , do not trust any politician from NYC. Our entire local goverment is nothing but snakes and traitors and our people are stupid enough to keep voting for them ie; Cuomo.
Anyway, this thread reminded me. I have to change my voter registration from Democratic to No Party Preference.
1 leparsdon 2019-03-18
I don't understand how counting straight votes would mean only 3 states decide who win, any less than having "battleground states" dictate who currently win anyway.
1 HeresCyonnah 2019-03-18
It really isn't any different.
1 CCAlkie 2019-03-18
Well but the battleground states swing, right? So you end up with either. If FL, NY, and CA decide the election, isn't that just a dem every time?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
No, Democratic votes in NY, CA and FL are much stronger under the Electoral College.
1 CCAlkie 2019-03-18
Thank god for a response that wasn't just some generic whine. So you're saying we'd be more/equally as competitive without one?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
Weād be more competitive, but the competition would be decentralized
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
It makes FL very powerful. Also states that are very large and only slightly but comfortable tilted towards one side a tremendously valuable to that side. Like Texas in the last election. If a state leans heavily towards one side like CA they tend to waste a lot of votes and it basically cancels out.
Of course the EC is still good then because ONE STATE shouldn't be able to decide the election?! Nevermind that there are plenty of election under the electoral college where you could subtract one state and the results would've changed. Also, what happens if you subtract Texas from Trumps side? Oh look, he loses even fucking harder. He didn't even have one state that decided the election, he had like a negative number of states that decided the election for him. Just stupid beyond words. Just a bunch of people that resent California, literally it's the whining of babies.
1 RudeEconomist26 2019-03-18
California, especially Los Angeles needs to be glassed. Gore Vidal, that glorious, erudite drama King once said that he lived in both California and Italy, so he didn't live in America at all.
If I ever move from Canada to the US, i'd rather move to Maine, Vermont or Montana. Lovely states.
1 TheRobidog 2019-03-18
You sound like the only place you should be moving to is a mental institution.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
An electoral campaign under popular vote would look sort of like a common music tour, you'd hit big cities on the coast yes but you'd also go to urban locations throughout the country in order to increase the likelihood that people near the metro area will be able to see you. Like the mountain states such as Wyoming probably won't get hit, but they don't get hit under the current system ever anyway.
If you spent all of your time in NYC and LA, it would be a waste. First off, NYC and LA combined are hardly even close to half the population. Maybe like 10%-15% combined. Second off people would eventually get bored and stop coming. That's why Taylor Swifts concerts do not consist of a bunch of shows in NYC and then a bunch of shows in LA. She hits Louisville, KY, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, DC, Cleaveland, Atlanta, Tampa, Detroit, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Arlington, TX. The end goal is to be able to get the most Americans to be able to see you. Which is the same goal you'd have in a presidential election.
https://www.taylorswift.com/news/295865
Advocates of the neo-feudal system, essentially based on the electoral system of the Holy Roman Empire, massively exaggerate the amount of focus that would be put on large coastal cities. They want to make it seem massively disproportional to the makeup of America. Which is absurd of course, because under one man one vote the electoral power is exactly 1:1 proportional to the actual makeup of America. Their story about LA and NYC being all that would matter sounds absurd because it is absurd, the makeup of America population wise is not even nearly so focused on LA and NYC. If LA and NYC actually did have a large enough population that they'd basically control the election by itself, like 50% of the US living there, what they're saying would probably actually make sense, because everybody reading it would be a fucking LA or NYC person and they'd be like "well yeah of course we're literally basically the country". It seems absurd because that's not even at all the case. Like 90% of the country population wise is outside of those urban areas. Politicians would be ignoring 90% of the population under their imagination.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
you know those three states are collectively less than 25% of the country, right?
you know there are literally millions of Californian Republcians whose votes essentially arenāt counted because of the Electoral College, right?
you know the EC is a fucking retarded system that doesnāt do either of the two things it was designed to do, right?
1 KyWy99 2019-03-18
yang 2020 š¤š¤šš
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
sure thatās fine
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
Proportional EC does
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
proportional EC would neither prevent demagogues nor increase the representation of slave states. Wyomingās a free state
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
What the fuck is "slave state" and why are you talking about demagogues?
1 Metal_Charizard 2019-03-18
This niš ±ļøš ±ļøa aināt heard of the thirteenf mendmint
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
I am aware of slavery. I am also aware that grungebot is a filthy historical revisionist.
1 Metal_Charizard 2019-03-18
I'm talking about grungebot you mongoloid. I'm saying he isn't aware that we've done away with slave states, because he is somehow even greater of a mongoloid than you are.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
My apologies
1 Metal_Charizard 2019-03-18
Sorry for snapping at you. I understand it was easy to interpret my reply as being directed at you. Perhaps I am the true mongoloid.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
You are alright, no worries. We are probably all mongs because we are here.
1 mariaschicklgruber 2019-03-18
Mongoloids RISE UP āš¼
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
āSlave statesā were the members of the early US that relied largely on slave labor for the early economy. Representatives from these states under the Articles of Confederation were quite salty about their lower voting populations and feared economic policies that would negatively affect them disproportionately, and as a result approached Constitutional Convention with an infamously entitled mindset wherein they refused to cooperate unless ensured undue representation.
The Electoral College was designed and to give the establishment an out if the people elected a demagogue
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
You have it flipped. It was Northern states that wanted slaves only counting for 3/5 instead of full.
3/5 compromise was a way to punish slave states, not help them.
And it doesn't matter that slaves couldn't vote. They certainly counted the population of other demographics that couldn't vote as well like women and children as obvious examples.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
I said nothing about the 3/5 compromise.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
Are you retarded? New England states are fucking tiny with barely any population and places like Virginia were fucking huge. Northern states purposely tried to lower the population of slave states to their advantage.
I have no clue what the fuck you are trying to say because EC was not about slave vs free. It was about small vs big.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
If it was about small vs. big then why did the largest state, Virginia, almost immediately turn to opposing federalist policies? And in fact Virginia could barely be convinced to support the constitution at all. There is a huge line of anti-federalist thought originating in Virginia, from Madison and Jefferson. Basically the only big Federalist to come from that state was Washignton. And Hamilton, the biggest federalist of them all, was from New York. Which at that time was not a very large state.
The debate didn't have barely anything to do about large states and small states and the factions largely never aligned along those lines. I have no idea why this narrative keeps getting repeated over and over again. The southern region was a minority, and it knew the rest of the union only barely tolerated its main form of economic producitivty, slavery plantations. It wanted a more confederated form of government to protect it's regional interests. Which included the largest state, Virginia. It was afraid that if the federal government grew too powerful, it would take away slavery from them in the national interest, so it wanted a weaker government to protect it's minority regional interests. Virginia itself I think was more concerned about the competition the federal government posed to its own immense power, than the power it could wield through the federal government. Because after all, regardless of how large it was, it was not a majority.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
How does this relate to the individual power each state would have in the national government and how it was allocated?
What you are describing is how much power total the government should have at federal level. Nothing I said was about that.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
The part about who wanted to count slaves is true, but the only particularly populous Southern states were Virginia and the Carolinas. The rest were up north.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
The southern states wanted the slaves to count fully with regards to representation, and for the white population to cast all of their votes. Basically any compromise on this issue would've effectively left the states with no voice. Compromising at 3/5 is like a brilliant symbol of just how dehumanized they were. Even though the northern states wanted them counted at zero, and there was basically no faction that really wanted to give them a vote.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
That doesn't make them dehumanized because of this discussion. Lots of the population couldn't vote, not just slaves. Also at the time there was pretty much zero democracy anywhere in the world. You are applying a 2019 lens to what you are talking about.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
A slave state is like the state you live in. Backwards neanderthals.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
Lol, tell me where I live.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
And that's why it would immediately get torpedoed in the House of Representatives. Literally the senate has already tried to pass a proportional EC amendments to the constitution, they approved it and sent it to the house. The house took one look at it and told them to fuck off. That's how all attempts of this nature are going to go in the future. Why should large states agree to let themselves get fucked over even more unfairly than they currently are?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
How would they get "more" fucked?
1 dazivostri 2019-03-18
The senate approved something and then sent it to the house? Got a source for that?
1 nanonan 2019-03-18
Let me guess, the EC is broken because it didn't stop Trump?
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
No, itās broken because itās extremely exploitable, extremely disproportionate towards states that are already overrepresented in the legislature, and serves literally no useful function.
But yes, the fact that it didnāt stop Trump reinforces the notion that it is not an effective tool in stopping demagogues, as originally intended. Not that Iād want that kind of failsafe anyway, that sounds undemocratic as fuck.
1 Fucking_That_Chicken 2019-03-18
it does serve the extremely useful purpose of basically eliminating voter fraud, since it means that the only "states in play" are the ones which necessarily are going to have a lot of relatively moderate people from both parties available to monitor the results
that's pretty essential unless you want to nationalize the electoral system or otherwise establish a system where you can monitor every precinct with outside observers who are neutral on a national level (since regionally there's bound to be some zell miller-types who are OK with stuffing boxes for the "opposite" party)
forcing candidates to go after ~51% in like twenty states instead of ~90% in like ten does also mean that there is a little less regionalist retardedness and fewer candidates who are literally strom thurmond
1 alibix 2019-03-18
Voter fraud meme lol
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
this makes no sense lol, youāre essentially making the case that getting accurate results from most states is a lost cause. and if that were the case, why bother with elections at all?
everyone from BOTH parties would have a stake in it. EVERY state would be āin play.ā
and there are other races besides president, you know. thereāll always be competitive races in each state.
having standards would be nice, but we still need to vote for Congress, governorsp, mayors, aldermen, etc
this sounds fine too, oversight is good.
ā90% in like ten statesā couldnāt be a viable strategy for both parties. Which ten states could have 90% go either way? Whoās the other 70% of the country gonna vote for?
1 nanonan 2019-03-18
Well it's going to be hard to stop demagogues as I couldn't name an American politician who wasn't one.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
well there you go then. EC donāt work
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
Let me guess, the EC is good because it selected the candidate you wanted instead of the one America did?
1 Cho-Dai 2019-03-18
Don't change it. Daddy Yang needs voters in Dem primaries.
Electoral college, popular vote, rural, urban... it don't matter, everyone wants dat sweet sweet bag my nibba.
1 AugustDoxx 2019-03-18
You ever notice people in deep blue areas know all their politicians are evil but dont care? Say what you will about the GOP they dont seem to have this corruption problem.
1 respaaaaaj 2019-03-18
Imagine being this much of a boomer.
1 lyridsreign 2019-03-18
Imagine being this much of a Boomer that you forget Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky exist
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
donāt forget Louisiana!
I mean yeah, NOLAās there, but thatās just a tiny piece
1 Krombopulos-Snake 2019-03-18
Corruption easily clings to people who believe they're acting for the good of Others. It's one of those things that keeps happening in history but nobody ever seems to notice and people get really, really butthurt if you call them out for it.
1 Metal_Charizard 2019-03-18
That wasnāt very radical centrist of you.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
The problem of acknowledging the problem?
Yeah, the GOP is pretty shitty at that
1 TheRobidog 2019-03-18
No, the conservatards are just too dumb to notice it.
1 FineLow 2019-03-18
Its more that all big urban centers will elect a democrat which what liberals and more so lefties want.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
which ābig urban centersā? under 4% of the population lives in coastal cities
1 FineLow 2019-03-18
More than 40% lives on the coast.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
So literally the entire coast of the entire United States, from Houston to Boston, from San Diego to Seattle, probably includes Anchorage and Honolulu as well. So a lot more than "NY and LA". And it's not even a majority. And that is apparently all that's going to matter and people are just going to ignore 60% of the people country who's votes county just as equally. Uh-huh.
How does it feel to have an IQ around 70?
1 FineLow 2019-03-18
How does it feel to be a triggered lefty? You do realize we don't even come close to a 100% voter turnout? The last presidential election was 56% voter turnout.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
š
1 shallowm 2019-03-18
If you do this then you won't be able to vote in primaries, which basically means your vote is even more useless since the Democratic candidates in the general elections are going to win 99% of the time.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
You're an idiot
1 telandrias 2019-03-18
Lol california and nyc already have dominated and gatekept 99% of the media into their little club, and act like wyoming or iowa having minority repsentation in 1/7 of the races that matter is a heinous crime.
1 rnjbond 2019-03-18
As opposed to now where Iowa decides who the next president is
1 nwordking 2019-03-18
We should have like a body of government that is proportionally represented by the amount of people in each state
1 Stenwalden 2019-03-18
Holy shit I am really starting to like this guy!
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
š
1 leparsdon 2019-03-18
Imagine thinking that a popular vote is bad in a supposed Democracy š±
1 KazarakOfKar 2019-03-18
Except the US is not a direct democracy, it is a republic.
1 leparsdon 2019-03-18
Yea, I know which is why I used "supposed"
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
Democracy has many forms. It doesn't require direct.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
you say that like itās a good thing
1 running_out_of_alts 2019-03-18
you say that like Democracy is a good thing
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-03-18
Monarchists rise up
1 nanonan 2019-03-18
Name the superior system.
1 Yuri_Andropov 2019-03-18
The Electoral College is important because it keeps Presidential elections to the states. A popular election would likely become a federal responsibility which is dangerous when you place the congress or executive in control of the presidential election. It also makes it easier to regulate the election. Imagine the 2000 election which was very close, how would you handle a recount? Electoral college allows us to break down the vote state by state.
1 HuskyPupper 2019-03-18
Wrong.
1 grungebot5000 2019-03-18
wouldnāt it still break down by county anyway?
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
FUCK
THE
STATES
1 Alpha100f 2019-03-18
I like how Yang and republicans/conservatives essentially advocate for political equivalent of gibsmedats because of, suddenly, the richer and more successful NYC/California/Florida would ensure that conservacucks wouldn't win.
Hmm.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2019-03-18
Richer, California has the highest rate of poverty in the country.
1 morethanjustasloth 2019-03-18
States and cities should be viewed as hive minds and if you disagree you are dumbo liberal.
1 HeyHoneyHey 2019-03-18
YANG2020 YANGFOREVER
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2019-03-18
Andrew Yang Ultimate centrist: Runs as a democrat, goes for policies to try and win Red states.
1 gilmore606 2019-03-18
It's a pretty smart strategy for a person actually trying to win. In recent polls likely Dem primary voters have indicated their #1 criterion is 'electability'. If they see this guy polling well in the general population, it helps him in the primary.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-03-18
Imagine a bunch of these blue states pass laws that give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Then 2020 rolls around and Trump wins the popular vote but loses (under the old rules) the electoral College, only for those new laws to apply and California's gotta give 55 to Daddy. Lord, the drama.
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
The interstate compact only kicks into effect when a majority of states electoral college wise join. It does not kick into effect before that because it would be pointless and would lead to obvious exploitation.
1 The_Reason_Berny_Won 2019-03-18
1 Burnnoticelover 2019-03-18
Heās right you know.
1 ToTheNintieth 2019-03-18
This line of argument sure got popular after Trump won. Wonder why?
1 watermark08 2019-03-18
Donald Trump won 20 more senate derived electoral votes than HC. His seizure of power was not due to senate derived EC's and they barely have any effect on the process at all. Large states would never agree to proportional allocation of EC's because having a giant bloc of votes is one of the main benefits of the system to them, if they were allocated proportionally it would just plain benefit small states. And why would they agree to that?
Virtually all campaign stops take place in urban areas anyway? Urban areas in the largest most swingiest states. A presidential campaign under popular vote would look sort of like common music tour maps (except probably with a larger variety of locations, since presidential candidates primarily travel by air instead of bus), you'd try to hit all the largest cities but balance that with hitting a wide variety of cities across the country so that people could come and see you from all around close to that area.
If you just spent all your time in New York and LA, that would be an incredibly poor strategy because only like 10% of voters like in New York and LA. There's a reason Taylor Swift didn't just play in New York a bunch of times, play in LA a bunch of times, and cal it quits. It would be a retarded way to get a lot of people to see you.
Electoral college proponents like to claim that that would be the case because it's clearly absurd. It's clearly absurd because it's not at all true. The places that would be visited, would look like America. Instead of Ohio and Florida 200 times in a row. You know "small states".
1 PeeledGrape72 2019-03-18
Yang gang all the way
1 otherwiseyep 2019-03-18
the winner should be whomever will give us the most dollars a month