This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Here’s a thing
http://www.people-press.org/2017/02/16/1-early-public-attitudes-about-donald-trump/Something is wrong with the percentage under Trunp. When you add up the % that approve (39), to the % that disapprove (56), to the number that don’t know (6), you get 101%. That does not make sense.
Presumably some rounding is happening.
If a majority isn’t a majority then what is it?
What if, in your scenario, millions lived in that one city and the boonies, all put together, amounted to a dozen, total. What gives those people more of a voice than a dozen in the city? Just because people live in a city, doesn’t mean they all think alike or want the same things.
If the people want a cat, they’ll elect a cat. Whether there’s an electoral college system in place wouldn’t change that. There’s nothing about cats that’s going to make everybody in the cities vote for it and no one in the boonies.
Yes there are more liberals in the cities, but if liberal candidates started pandering to only those in the cities they would lose a lot of other votes fast. As is, we have conservative candidates who don’t consider those in cities at all because they don’t have to (well besides corporate fat cats). Our current system gears elections to a small amount of states, not the whole country. Why should people in the rust belt and Florida have control over the country?
Yeah, but how does a straight popular vote not just do the same thing? Why focus on some podunk state in the Midwest when you can just win the most populous states (which would be the ones with the largest liberal metros) and take the election? Again, the idea behind the electoral college was to make candidates focus on the whole country and not just the most populous states, and to make voter fraud more difficult.
I just worry about a majority dictating terms to a minority is all. It’s the old “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner” adage. We have checks and balances all over government and going with a straight popular vote does away with that entirely.
I’m not saying the electoral college is a perfect system at all, and there are definitely ways to modernize it and bring it up to code, it’s just that I feel that it was put in place for a reason and that I believe it more or less serves that purpose. I also reject NPV as subversive of the constitution verging on fraud.
States aren’t a hive mind though. There’s no such thing as focusing on the most populace states alone. There are voters in New York State who vote a lot closer to those in North Dakota than NYC.
The EC was put in place because of the North/South dichotomy where there were clear divisions between the wants and needs of Northern and Southern states. We don’t live in a country anymore where different states have wildly different make ups and concerns. Two thirds of the country isn’t going to eat the other third, that’s just not going to happen. But when the EC was put in place, the North fucking the South over was a legitimate concern (and it still happened anyway, if you ask the South why they seceded). What happens with policy now affects every state, and every voter.
I just don’t see how this boogeyman hypothetical of a popularly elected president a thing.
There’s already state governments and Congress in place to ensure the individual states get what they need. But at the end of the day we’re supposed to be a democratic nation so everyone should get a say. As is my vote means diddly fucking squat.
Forgive this European if he misunderstands the US Presidential election setup but…
Isn’t the “less populated States and rural areas” argument only a thing if the popular vote had gone against them all the time without the EC system?
The reverse is true…
In the last 100 years the popular vote has given the same result as the college in all but two extremely controversial occasions (Bush in 2000 & Trump in 2016). The idea that there would never be a Republican President again with the Popular vote is nonsense and the opposite of the reality. So why not go with the popular vote?
All but two of our fifty states are winner-takes-all, which means that the candidate with the most votes in that state wins that state’s electoral votes, so the popular vote is almost always going to mirror the electoral college votes.
Obviously states aren’t a hive mind, but there are plenty of clear divisions between states and regions of the US; it’s why the interior of the country usually swings red while the coasts swing blue. You don’t really solve Texas being a red state or California being a blue state if you remove the electoral college.
Majorities are things to be wary of in my opinion, regardless if it’s today or 1850. It’s not a hive mind, sure, but people follow packs and that can lead to bad things and in my opinion, it’s better to plan for the possibility that two thirds of the country might indeed eat the other third; after all, people didn’t expect the revolution or the civil war or Trump’s presidency. We’re always simultaneously not as homogeneous as we think and more homogeneous than we think.
As it stands, you can win all the big 15+ electoral votes states (California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina) and still lose the election. But you probably won’t win all of those states because some are red and some are blue, not to mention swing states and flipping states (which played a big factor with Bush and Trump), so the small states where “your vote doesn’t matter” are still incredibly important. In a straight popular vote, why even think about states with a population less than 9 million? Under the current system it can come right down to a state like Montana or Alaska; with a straight popular vote, nothing matters but winning the biggest, most populous states in your constituency, not so much winning a broad variety of different voters.
As with any system, there are of course places that “matter” more than others, but in the current system, which states are important can change from election to election. A pure popular vote just means the biggest states and cities keep getting more important.
I used to be big on abolishing the colleges until a few years ago. Is it perfect? Far far from it, but the importance it places on the voice of the smaller states and minorities in the larger scheme of the governance of the nation as well as the steps it takes towards preventing and containing possible election fraud to the state where it occurs are all important to our elections and should be preserved rather than just outright abolishing the system. It’s checks and balances, which is one of the biggest ideals that the nation was founded upon.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
I’m curious what one of the few sane pro-gun people I know (Tyr) thinks about this.
I’ve been (stupidly) assuming that this was part of some larger bill that was actually sensical, but no, the gun lobbies are just worried about old mentally ill people who can legally not handle their own finances being able to buy guns.
It’s complex, but I’m glad you brought it up because I’ve been annoyed today seeing it in the news painted by the media as “WOW REPUBLICANS BASICALLY HAND GUNS TO INSANE KILLERS?!”
The intent of the bill is to keep mentally ill people from owning guns, which seems reasonable to me. Sure.
The issue is that the brush they use is a broad one. So it’s not just potentially dangerous people who are affected: it could be someone who is normal in every other way, but is so dyslexic that they can’t balance a checkbook. Just because you can’t handle your finances doesn’t mean you’re a potential danger to those around you.
Here’s a good article that I feel represents both sides well: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
I also worry that laws like this with no real clear definition as to what constitutes “mentally ill/incompetent” will keep people from seeking help they need.
To me, this falls into the realm of a band-aid bill, like the border wall, which have been increasingly annoying me lately. They do very little to address actual issues and instead just look to me like ways politicians can say “look, I did something!”
It’s also the failing with many of the “common sense” gun controls people bring up. Is it common sense not to sell a gun to a person diagnosed with ASPD and narcissism? Of course. Is it common sense to deny gun ownership to a broad group of people purely because for some reason they can no longer handle their own finances? Eh. I think that’s a very grey area and could border on discrimination. The criteria for what constitutes mentally ill isn’t defined enough in my opinion to warrant this kind of action against all who fall into the category.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
Here’s a thing
http://www.people-press.org/2017/02/16/1-early-public-attitudes-about-donald-trump/Something is wrong with the percentage under Trunp. When you add up the % that approve (39), to the % that disapprove (56), to the number that don’t know (6), you get 101%. That does not make sense.
Presumably some rounding is happening.
That’s exactly what Very Fake News CNN wants you to think.
Obviously states aren’t a hive mind, but there are plenty of clear divisions between states and regions of the US; it’s why the interior of the country usually swings red while the coasts swing blue. You don’t really solve Texas being a red state or California being a blue state if you remove the electoral college.
I said pretty much the same thing, here was Dom’s response.
We don’t live in a country anymore where different states have wildly different make ups and concerns.
Texas, California, and Florida would like a word.
That’s simultaneously not what I meant and exactly what I meant, if you know what I mean.
Tyrphanax said:
Majorities are things to be wary of in my opinion, regardless if it’s today or 1850. It’s not a hive mind, sure, but people follow packs and that can lead to bad things and in my opinion, it’s better to plan for the possibility that two thirds of the country might indeed eat the other third; after all, people didn’t expect the revolution or the civil war or Trump’s presidency. We’re always simultaneously not as homogeneous as we think and more homogeneous than we think.
Whole heartily agreed, this is something the Founding Fathers feared themselves, human nature has not changed as much as we might like since then. I said something similar earlier and Dom blew it off.
I don’t think we’re one continuous country. I think living in different states has a great deal to do with that, and it’s only getting worse as people move to ideologically similar areas. So your assertion doesn’t really make sense to me.
A liberal in Texas is more likely to move to Austin than Boston.
If a majority isn’t a majority then what is it?
What if, in your scenario, millions lived in that one city and the boonies, all put together, amounted to a dozen, total. What gives those people more of a voice than a dozen in the city? Just because people live in a city, doesn’t mean they all think alike or want the same things.
If the people want a cat, they’ll elect a cat. Whether there’s an electoral college system in place wouldn’t change that. There’s nothing about cats that’s going to make everybody in the cities vote for it and no one in the boonies.
Yes there are more liberals in the cities, but if liberal candidates started pandering to only those in the cities they would lose a lot of other votes fast. As is, we have conservative candidates who don’t consider those in cities at all because they don’t have to (well besides corporate fat cats). Our current system gears elections to a small amount of states, not the whole country. Why should people in the rust belt and Florida have control over the country?
Yeah, but how does a straight popular vote not just do the same thing? Why focus on some podunk state in the Midwest when you can just win the most populous states (which would be the ones with the largest liberal metros) and take the election? Again, the idea behind the electoral college was to make candidates focus on the whole country and not just the most populous states, and to make voter fraud more difficult.
I just worry about a majority dictating terms to a minority is all. It’s the old “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner” adage. We have checks and balances all over government and going with a straight popular vote does away with that entirely.
I’m not saying the electoral college is a perfect system at all, and there are definitely ways to modernize it and bring it up to code, it’s just that I feel that it was put in place for a reason and that I believe it more or less serves that purpose. I also reject NPV as subversive of the constitution verging on fraud.
States aren’t a hive mind though. There’s no such thing as focusing on the most populace states alone. There are voters in New York State who vote a lot closer to those in North Dakota than NYC.
The EC was put in place because of the North/South dichotomy where there were clear divisions between the wants and needs of Northern and Southern states. We don’t live in a country anymore where different states have wildly different make ups and concerns. Two thirds of the country isn’t going to eat the other third, that’s just not going to happen. But when the EC was put in place, the North fucking the South over was a legitimate concern (and it still happened anyway, if you ask the South why they seceded). What happens with policy now affects every state, and every voter.
I just don’t see how this boogeyman hypothetical of a popularly elected president a thing.
There’s already state governments and Congress in place to ensure the individual states get what they need. But at the end of the day we’re supposed to be a democratic nation so everyone should get a say. As is my vote means diddly fucking squat.
Forgive this European if he misunderstands the US Presidential election setup but…
Isn’t the “less populated States and rural areas” argument only a thing if the popular vote had gone against them all the time without the EC system?
The reverse is true…
In the last 100 years the popular vote has given the same result as the college in all but two extremely controversial occasions (Bush in 2000 & Trump in 2016). The idea that there would never be a Republican President again with the Popular vote is nonsense and the opposite of the reality. So why not go with the popular vote?
All but two of our fifty states are winner-takes-all, which means that the candidate with the most votes in that state wins that state’s electoral votes, so the popular vote is almost always going to mirror the electoral college votes.
Obviously states aren’t a hive mind, but there are plenty of clear divisions between states and regions of the US; it’s why the interior of the country usually swings red while the coasts swing blue. You don’t really solve Texas being a red state or California being a blue state if you remove the electoral college.
Majorities are things to be wary of in my opinion, regardless if it’s today or 1850. It’s not a hive mind, sure, but people follow packs and that can lead to bad things and in my opinion, it’s better to plan for the possibility that two thirds of the country might indeed eat the other third; after all, people didn’t expect the revolution or the civil war or Trump’s presidency. We’re always simultaneously not as homogeneous as we think and more homogeneous than we think.
As it stands, you can win all the big 15+ electoral votes states (California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina) and still lose the election. But you probably won’t win all of those states because some are red and some are blue, not to mention swing states and flipping states (which played a big factor with Bush and Trump), so the small states where “your vote doesn’t matter” are still incredibly important. In a straight popular vote, why even think about states with a population less than 9 million? Under the current system it can come right down to a state like Montana or Alaska; with a straight popular vote, nothing matters but winning the biggest, most populous states in your constituency, not so much winning a broad variety of different voters.
As with any system, there are of course places that “matter” more than others, but in the current system, which states are important can change from election to election. A pure popular vote just means the biggest states and cities keep getting more important.
I used to be big on abolishing the colleges until a few years ago. Is it perfect? Far far from it, but the importance it places on the voice of the smaller states and minorities in the larger scheme of the governance of the nation as well as the steps it takes towards preventing and containing possible election fraud to the state where it occurs are all important to our elections and should be preserved rather than just outright abolishing the system. It’s checks and balances, which is one of the biggest ideals that the nation was founded upon.
The thing is, no matter what you can’t just pander to the states with the largest populations because ultimately what they want is not going to be the same all one thing, regardless of how many people live there. Even if you ignore a small state (which by the way already happens on the campaign trails, basically none of the small states get any attention - I doubt any candidate has ever campaigned in Alaska or Montana), you’re still going up against policies that they want that extend to other states. Just because California’s always going to be blue and Texas is always going to be red doesn’t mean everyone inside thinks the same way each election. Both states went far bluer for Clinton than they ever did for Obama, and look how much that mattered. I think the issue with the minority argument is in many ways these geographical boundaries are arbitrary, and what sepearates one state from another, ideologically, is becoming more muddled. Liberals are a minority in Texas but the EC only gives voice to the majority every time, no matter what the margin.
I truly believe the thinking in pack arguments is moot these days. If the fear is that we elect a populist disaster, well then it’s clear now that the EC will do nothing to stop that.
States don’t get ignored on the campaign trail because they’re small, they get ignored because they’re not battleground states. Alaska and Montana get ignored, but so do California and Texas.
The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.
Ok, well, there’s someone else whose mind doesn’t apply modus ponens.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Many of the arguments posted here for the electoral college are countered by Koza in the debate I posted earlier - in most cases there is data to the contrary. I strongly recommend watching it in its entirety, as many of these arguments - as well as many assumptions posted here about the underlying bases for the EC - are not well founded.
As for the argument that a popular vote would result in some states not having a voice, well, that’s certainly the case now (only it’s a different set of states).
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Many of the arguments posted here for the electoral college are countered by Koza in the debate I posted earlier - in most cases there is data to the contrary. I strongly recommend watching it in its entirety, as many of these arguments - as well as many assumptions posted here about the underlying bases for the EC - are not well founded.
As for the argument that a popular vote would result in some states not having a voice, well, that’s certainly the case now (only it’s a different set of states).
I’ll have to check it out. I’m sure my arguments don’t really measure up to those from people who are far smarter and more informed than I.
Many of the arguments posted here for the electoral college are countered by Koza in the debate I posted earlier - in most cases there is data to the contrary. I strongly recommend watching it in its entirety, as many of these arguments - as well as many assumptions posted here about the underlying bases for the EC - are not well founded.
As for the argument that a popular vote would result in some states not having a voice, well, that’s certainly the case now (only it’s a different set of states).
I’ll have to check it out. I’m sure my arguments don’t really measure up to those from people who are far smarter and more informed than I.
Yeah, thanks for reminding me about that Puggo. I meant to go back and watch it and then completely spaced it.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
Many of the arguments posted here for the electoral college are countered by Koza in the debate I posted earlier - in most cases there is data to the contrary. I strongly recommend watching it in its entirety, as many of these arguments - as well as many assumptions posted here about the underlying bases for the EC - are not well founded.
As for the argument that a popular vote would result in some states not having a voice, well, that’s certainly the case now (only it’s a different set of states).
I’ll have to check it out. I’m sure my arguments don’t really measure up to those from people who are far smarter and more informed than I.
Yeah, thanks for reminding me about that Puggo. I meant to go back and watch it and then completely spaced it.
Sad!
Obviously states aren’t a hive mind, but there are plenty of clear divisions between states and regions of the US; it’s why the interior of the country usually swings red while the coasts swing blue. You don’t really solve Texas being a red state or California being a blue state if you remove the electoral college.
I said pretty much the same thing, here was Dom’s response.
We don’t live in a country anymore where different states have wildly different make ups and concerns.
Texas, California, and Florida would like a word.
That’s simultaneously not what I meant and exactly what I meant, if you know what I mean.
Tyrphanax said:
Majorities are things to be wary of in my opinion, regardless if it’s today or 1850. It’s not a hive mind, sure, but people follow packs and that can lead to bad things and in my opinion, it’s better to plan for the possibility that two thirds of the country might indeed eat the other third; after all, people didn’t expect the revolution or the civil war or Trump’s presidency. We’re always simultaneously not as homogeneous as we think and more homogeneous than we think.Whole heartily agreed, this is something the Founding Fathers feared themselves, human nature has not changed as much as we might like since then. I said something similar earlier and Dom blew it off.
I don’t think we’re one continuous country. I think living in different states has a great deal to do with that, and it’s only getting worse as people move to ideologically similar areas. So your assertion doesn’t really make sense to me.
A liberal in Texas is more likely to move to Austin than Boston.
Short responses get short responses. Sorry if you feel like I blew you off, but I think my response there was a succinct way to say what I wanted to. If you want me to elaborate just say so.
Also, I don’t think human nature has changed so much as I think the way the our states and their interaction as a nation has changed.
I used to be big on abolishing the colleges until a few years ago.
What changed your mind?
I used to be big on abolishing the colleges until a few years ago.
What changed your mind?
He got rejected by the Electrical College.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/319961-cummings-trump-made-up-cancelled-meeting
Rep. Elijah Cummings said Thursday that President Trump invented a story about the Maryland Democrat canceling a scheduled meeting between the two.
“I have no idea why President Trump would make up a story about me like he did today,” he said in a statement.
“Of course, [Senate Minority Leader Charles] Schumer never told me to skip a meeting with the president,” he added.
The statement came shortly after President Trump said during a press conference that he had tried to set up a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus member, who backed out.
“I was all set to have that meeting,” Trump said.
Cummings “was all excited and then he said, ‘Oh, I can’t move it. It might be bad for me politically. I can’t have that meeting.’”
“He was probably told by Schumer — or some other lightweight — ‘Don’t meet with Trump, it’s bad politics,’" the president said.
Cummings disputed Trump’s account and insisted he remains eager to discuss “the skyrocketing price of prescription drugs” with the president.
JEDIT:
This is the same woman who asked Trump the question!
JEDIT2:
https://twitter.com/OfficialCBC/status/832316384260526081
Hi, @realDonaldTrump. We’re the CBC. We sent you a letter on January 19, but you never wrote us back. Sad! Letter: http://bit.ly/2kD6FhQ
I’m curious what one of the few sane pro-gun people I know (Tyr) thinks about this.
I’ve been (stupidly) assuming that this was part of some larger bill that was actually sensical, but no, the gun lobbies are just worried about old mentally ill people who can legally not handle their own finances being able to buy guns.
It’s complex, but I’m glad you brought it up because I’ve been annoyed today seeing it in the news painted by the media as “WOW REPUBLICANS BASICALLY HAND GUNS TO INSANE KILLERS?!”
The intent of the bill is to keep mentally ill people from owning guns, which seems reasonable to me. Sure.
The issue is that the brush they use is a broad one. So it’s not just potentially dangerous people who are affected: it could be someone who is normal in every other way, but is so dyslexic that they can’t balance a checkbook. Just because you can’t handle your finances doesn’t mean you’re a potential danger to those around you.
But it might be indicative that you can’t make rational decisions as far as guns are concerned. Is a dyslexic person really incapable of handling their own finances? Sure they may need to some help to read things and add up numbers, but surely they are still capable of making their own decisions in regards to their finances. That is what I thought we are talking about - people who were so mentally ill that they couldn’t make their own financial decisions.
I used to be big on abolishing the colleges until a few years ago.
What changed your mind?
He got rejected by the Electrical College.
Trump reminds me of my father more and more with each passing day.
Easy to talk out of your ass when it isn’t on the line.
The specifics of the two leaks doesn’t help him either. Hacker does not equal whistleblower. The act itself of the former being worse while with the latter, the act implies the info being leaked is worse.
Many of the arguments posted here for the electoral college are countered by Koza in the debate I posted earlier - in most cases there is data to the contrary. I strongly recommend watching it in its entirety, as many of these arguments - as well as many assumptions posted here about the underlying bases for the EC - are not well founded.
As for the argument that a popular vote would result in some states not having a voice, well, that’s certainly the case now (only it’s a different set of states).
I’ll have to check it out. I’m sure my arguments don’t really measure up to those from people who are far smarter and more informed than I.
Yeah, thanks for reminding me about that Puggo. I meant to go back and watch it and then completely spaced it.
I’ve just finished the video and while I still lean more towards Hulme’s point of view, Koza made very good points (and explained things about the NPV initiative that I didn’t know which was very welcome), and so have Dom, Ryan, and Puggo during the course of this discussion.
Just so I’m clear, it’s not so much that I’m opposed to a change as it is that I feel there were very good reasons that the system was put in place and I believe that many of those reasons are still valid and shouldn’t be discounted when we talk about reforms and changes to the system.
I used to be big on abolishing the colleges until a few years ago.
What changed your mind?
My apologies. I didn’t complete my thought in my final paragraph: I used to be big on abolishing the colleges until a few years ago when I did some research into the reasons the system was put in place. Then follows the rest of the paragraph.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
I’m curious what one of the few sane pro-gun people I know (Tyr) thinks about this.
I’ve been (stupidly) assuming that this was part of some larger bill that was actually sensical, but no, the gun lobbies are just worried about old mentally ill people who can legally not handle their own finances being able to buy guns.
It’s complex, but I’m glad you brought it up because I’ve been annoyed today seeing it in the news painted by the media as “WOW REPUBLICANS BASICALLY HAND GUNS TO INSANE KILLERS?!”
The intent of the bill is to keep mentally ill people from owning guns, which seems reasonable to me. Sure.
The issue is that the brush they use is a broad one. So it’s not just potentially dangerous people who are affected: it could be someone who is normal in every other way, but is so dyslexic that they can’t balance a checkbook. Just because you can’t handle your finances doesn’t mean you’re a potential danger to those around you.
But it might be indicative that you can’t make rational decisions as far as guns are concerned. Is a dyslexic person really incapable of handling their own finances? Sure they may need to some help to read things and add up numbers, but surely they are still capable of making their own decisions in regards to their finances. That is what I thought we are talking about - people who were so mentally ill that they couldn’t make their own financial decisions.
I don’t disagree with the first part of the premise at all, I just feel that the way the law was written and the way that “mental illness” is determined with regards to how the law is implemented is too vague at present.
While being unable to handle your finances can certainly mean that you aren’t of sound enough mind to possess a firearm, I don’t think that should be the only metric that decides whether or not you are of sound enough mind to possess firearms.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
I’m trying to imagine a situation where someone who can’t handle their finances should be allowed to handle a gun.
Trump reminds me of my father more and more with each passing day.
“I’m so sorry.”
