[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[Commodore]

That's completely nonsensical. You accept the majority rule for states, but suddendly you don't accept it for country. It's somehow undemocratic if 50 millions people here have the majority over 15 millions people here and 25 millions at this place, but somehow it's democratic if these 15 + 25 millions have the majority over these 50 millions ?
That's broken logic.

I think where most of you are making your mistake is your thinking more people equals more important. Just because a region has a large population does not mean they are more important to the nation than lower population areas. I already stated an example of how low population agricultural communities are more important than a big city. In that case, it only makes sense that the rural communities that actually feed the nation get a larger say, proportionally, than people living in the cities. By doing that, it all evens out in the end to where each region has an equal political voice. And each region having an equal voice is about as democratic as you can get.

 

[Kyriakos]

Each region having a vote sounds like baronies

 

[Akka]

I think where most of you are making your mistake is your thinking more people equals more important.

It's the entire principle of a democratic system, so yeah. If you start to chose whose votes is worth more than the other, then you're leaving democracy and entering meritocracy. Which is all nice and well, except it requires someone to determine whose votes is "better" and we're back to square one.

Also, you're inconsistent in that you consider it okay to have majority rule in state election, but suddendly not okay in national election.

And each region having an equal voice is about as democratic as you can get.

No it's not. A region is not a person, and they aren't "the people". Persons are "the people".

 

[Archbob]

The majority of our population does live in cities. A cursory Google search would tell you that. And it's not just about city versus rural. In a popular vote system the minority viewpoint has absolutely zero voice even if that minority is as large as 49.9%. Right now Clinton is ahead in the popular vote but it's by less than one percent. Are really suggesting the people who voted for her should get their way simply because there were slightly more of them? That's ridiculous and you know full well you are only complaining about the Electoral College because your candidate lost. If Hillary had won you'd be singing the praises of our glorious and just electoral system.

That's why I don't take any of these complaints seriously. Funny how it's always the loser that starts whining about how unfair the system is.

Your point about candidates only having to campaign in a few states also doesn't have much merit. The focus on a few states isn't because those are the only states that matter, it's because those are the states that could go either way. That's why they are called battleground states. All the other states are either solidly red or blue so it would be stupid for candidates to campaign there. I mean, what's the point in campaigning in a state where you know you are guaranteed to win/lose?

That makes a lot more sense than the people voting for Trump getting their way because there are slightly less of them.

The EC vs popular vote will become more of an issue now and 2 of the past 4 elections have not been won with the person who got more votes. I've always thought since I was able to vote than it should be popular vote. No one person's vote should be more important than another person's.

See, in a popular vote scenario, there would be no "battleground states" because every vote would actually matter, so you would have to appease every state, not just a few.

Or you could have the Electoral college completely based on population as that would better reflect the will of the people. Population plus 2 doesn't make any sense.

And each region having an equal voice is about as democratic as you can get.

No, see we want rule by the people, not rule by arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think where most of you are making your mistake is your thinking more people equals more important. Just because a region has a large population does not mean they are more important to the nation than lower population areas. I already stated an example of how low population agricultural communities are more important than a big city. In that case, it only makes sense that the rural communities that actually feed the nation get a larger say, proportionally, than people living in the cities. By doing that, it all evens out in the end to where each region has an equal political voice. And each region having an equal voice is about as democratic as you can get.

All Animals are equal...

But some are more equal than Others...

Couldn't resist

 

[metalhead]

I think where most of you are making your mistake is your thinking more people equals more important. Just because a region has a large population does not mean they are more important to the nation than lower population areas. I already stated an example of how low population agricultural communities are more important than a big city. In that case, it only makes sense that the rural communities that actually feed the nation get a larger say, proportionally, than people living in the cities. By doing that, it all evens out in the end to where each region has an equal political voice. And each region having an equal voice is about as democratic as you can get.

But they're just arbitrary boundaries, there's no meaning to them. California has a ton of agriculture and other farming activity, for example. So does Pennsylvania, and Ohio, etc. Most states do, in fact. So I don't see where it makes any sense to say that less populated states are more important because of agriculture. States of all sizes and population have agriculture.

Also, states govern themselves for the most part, so it's not like the small rural states are going to get overrun and eventually ruled by the larger states. They'll remain mostly autonomous entities.

The main reason "agricultural" states are favored in our electoral system is slavery. I think that makes it antiquated enough to reform.

 

[Kyriakos]

That makes a lot more sense than the people voting for Trump getting their way because there are slightly less of them.

The EC vs popular vote will become more of an issue now and 2 of the past 4 elections have not been won with the person who got more votes. I've always thought since I was able to vote than it should be popular vote. No one person's vote should be more important than another person's.

See, in a popular vote scenario, there would be no "battleground states" because every vote would actually matter, so you would have to appease every state, not just a few.

Or you could have the Electoral college completely based on population as that would better reflect the will of the people. Population plus 2 doesn't make any sense.



No, see we want rule by the people, not rule by arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

While i obviously agree that the popular vote is literally the democratic option, and it is what happens almost everywhere, there are issues with this in a federal system, cause in some cases (and true in the US) it will mean some small states matter as much as one city in a larger state, so most politicians would not care at all about those states' public opinion.
The same will happen even if the electoral system is ceremonially kept but negated by proportional handing of electors accordingly to votes for each party; again in many cases *a few seats* in one of those states will be more important than entire other states. If you want to see what happens when a few larger states matter and others don't... look at Eu

 

[Disgustipated]

See, in a popular vote scenario, there would be no "battleground states" because every vote would actually matter, so you would have to appease every state, not just a few.

Both systems have their flaws, but I see no reason to throw out our current system. Yes there is the flaw with our current system, that votes in California really don't matter, neither candidate campaigned in that state, other than getting donor money. Under the current system Californians shouldn't even bother to vote. My state, being a battleground state is important. Although it's clear at this point that my state is truly a Democratic state now, we have too many Californian transplants and latinos, and the last 3 elections have been clearly Democrat. The drawbacks of the popular vote is both candidates would just ignore rural America for the most part. So either way some states will be ignored. In this case, big states like New York and California are ignored, where as with a popular vote states like Iowa would be ignored.

The biggest problem this election was Michigan. Their votes were more important than most people's. And many of them stupidly voted for Jill Stein. If they had voted for Hilary, then Trump wouldn't have gotten over 270 (although I don't she would have 270 either with just Michagan, I'd have to check).

Seriously, check out how many people in Michigan voted for Jill Stein. What were they thinking? Those voters cost Clinton the election.

edit: Okay I was going off old electoral numbers. I didn't realize Trump was so high in the 280's, when I first checked this morning CNN had him at 278. But my point still stands. I might be okay with popular votes IF we have runoff elections. Right now candidates like Jill Stein throw everything off. She cost Clinton the state of Michigan.

 

[Commodore]

While i obviously agree that the popular vote is literally the democratic option, and it is what happens almost everywhere, there are issues with this in a federal system, cause in some cases (and true in the US) it will mean some small states matter as much as one city in a larger state, so most politicians would not care at all about those states' public opinion.
The same will happen even if the electoral system is ceremonially kept but negated by proportional handing of electors accordingly to votes for each party; again in many cases *a few seats* in one of those states will be more important than entire other states. If you want to see what happens when a few larger states matter and others don't... look at Eu

Exactly. In a popular vote system you are telling people their vote doesn't matter simply because they chose not to live in a big city.

And for those saying state lines are arbitrary: that's just plain wrong and saying so shows an astounding level of ignorance to the history of the formation of the US. There are actually very good reasons state lines were drawn as they were.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think where most of you are making your mistake is your thinking more people equals more important. Just because a region has a large population does not mean they are more important to the nation than lower population areas. I already stated an example of how low population agricultural communities are more important than a big city. In that case, it only makes sense that the rural communities that actually feed the nation get a larger say, proportionally, than people living in the cities. By doing that, it all evens out in the end to where each region has an equal political voice. And each region having an equal voice is about as democratic as you can get.

But the electoral college does a terrible job of representing the regional diversity of America. Rural communities in New York and urban communities in Iowa are both completely unrepresented, because they happen to be atypical of their state. It only gives the illusion of representation because it allows strong urban and rural voices on the national stage, not because it gives power to those voices in a way which is consistent or even-handed.

A popular vote, at least, allows everyone to speak for themselves.

 

[Commodore]

All Animals are equal...

But some are more equal than Others...

Couldn't resist

Loving the new avatar man. I wish everyone could see this all for the massive joke that it is like you do.

 

[Akka]

Exactly. In a popular vote system you are telling people their vote doesn't matter simply because they chose not to live in a big city.

And having some people worth three times more than others because they don't live in a city is somehow more fair ?

 

[Archbob]

Exactly. In a popular vote system you are telling people their vote doesn't matter simply because they chose not to live in a big city.

And for those saying state lines are arbitrary: that's just plain wrong and saying so shows an astounding level of ignorance to the history of the formation of the US. There are actually very good reasons state lines were drawn as they were.

No, under a popular vote, every vote matters the same because you literally need to have more votes than the other guy, 1 vote in the countryside equals one vote in a big city. You can't win a US popular vote election just by winning the biggest cities. Clinton won most Metro areas and the popular vote is still very close. You need the countryside as well.

And yes, a lot of state lines are arbitrary, especially in the Mountain west, many of them are literally perfect squares. A lot of boundaries are natural boundaries like rivers or mountain range. They are little more than markers nowdays.

 

[Commodore]

But the electoral college does a terrible job of representing the regional diversity of America. Rural communities in New York and urban communities in Iowa are both completely unrepresented, because they happen to be atypical of their state. It only gives the illusion of representation because it allows strong urban and rural voices on the national stage, not because it gives power to those voices in a way which is consistent or even-handed.

A popular vote, at least, allows everyone to speak for themselves.

Sure, everyone gets to speak for themselves, but if you're in the minority, you can speak for yourself until you are blue in the face but the majority has no incentive to listen to you. Under the electoral system we have, the majority usually rules, but occasionally (like in this election) the minority gets their time in the sun and gets to boss the majority around for a few years. Basically the electoral system we have gives everyone a chance to have a REAL voice in government, not just some feel-good crap of letting people express themselves and then the majority just Pat's them on the head, sends them home and goes about their business of ignoring them entirely.

 

[Commodore]

No, under a popular vote, every vote matters the same because you literally need to have more votes than the other guy, 1 vote in the countryside equals one vote in a big city. You can't win a US popular vote election just by winning the biggest cities. Clinton won most Metro areas and the popular vote is still very close. You need the countryside as well.

And yes, a lot of state lines are arbitrary, especially in the Mountain west, many of them are literally perfect squares. A lot of boundaries are natural boundaries like rivers or mountain range. They are little more than markers nowdays.

You still haven't done that Google search have you? 80.7% of the US population lives in cities. If a party managed to build up solid support in the largest city in each state, that's all they would need and could effectively ignore the rest of the country. A popular vote system creates a situation where government stagnates because one party gains dominance and never loses it unless something drastic happens. All you have to do to see an example of what I'm talking about is look at any major city in the US. Every city operates on a popular vote system and most of them have been run by the same party for decades.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

This was disheartening to read: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._surveyed_described_black_people_as_less.html

 

[Commodore]

And having some people worth three times more than others because they don't live in a city is somehow more fair ?

Yes because it all balances out in the end. The individuals in rural areas may have more voting power per person, but the high population areas make up for diminished individual voting power through sheer weight of numbers. So in the end both rural communities and cities have roughly equal voice with one not truly being more powerful than the other. I don't see what the big problem with balance is?

 

[sophie]

I think where most of you are making your mistake is your thinking more people equals more important. Just because a region has a large population does not mean they are more important to the nation than lower population areas. I already stated an example of how low population agricultural communities are more important than a big city. In that case, it only makes sense that the rural communities that actually feed the nation get a larger say, proportionally, than people living in the cities. By doing that, it all evens out in the end to where each region has an equal political voice. And each region having an equal voice is about as democratic as you can get.

4.4 million people voted for Hillary Clinton in Florida. Their vote counts for nothing.
2.2 million people voted for Hillary Clinton in Michigan. Their vote counts for nothing.
2.8 million people voted for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania. Their vote counts for nothing
3.8 million people voted for Hillary Clinton in Texas. Their vote counts for nothing.

2.1 million people voted for Donald Trump in Illinois. Their vote counts for nothing.
2.9 million people voted for Donald Trump in California. Their vote counts for nothing.
1.7 million people voted for Donald Trump in Virginia. Their vote counts for nothing.

2.5 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton in California than were required for 50.1%. Their vote counts for nothing.
1.5 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton in New York than were required for 50.1%. Their vote counts for nothing.

The system doesn't actually represent minority interests as you would like because at the state level it's still decided by a popular vote. Because the electoral college is a winner-take-all system (with the notable exceptions of Maine and Nebraska), the instant one candidate tips 50.1% of the vote in a state, all the votes for the opposition are discarded. And in states like California, where the Bay Area and Los Angeles overwhelm the very sizeable rural populations, the voices of rural interests in that state are not heard and do not get to be heard. Likewise, because rural populations overwhelm the population of Miami and Orlando in Florida, the populations of Miami and Orlando do not get to be heard. If you like the Electoral College because it protects minority interests and ensures they get an equal say in their elections, that's fine. But don't pretend like that's what the current electoral college system as-is does. Presidential Candidates DO NOT go out and visit small states. How many times did either candidate go to Wyoming, or Nebraska, or Montana, or Idaho, or Utah, or Alabama, or Mississippi, or Arkansas in the last 5 months. The system as-is concentrates focus on a handful of valuable toss-up states and encourages the candidates to ignore everybody else. That's not mission accomplished.

 

[Akka]

Yes because it all balances out in the end. The individuals in rural areas may have more voting power per person, but the high population areas make up for diminished individual voting power through sheer weight of numbers. So in the end both rural communities and cities have roughly equal voice with one not truly being more powerful than the other. I don't see what the big problem with balance is?

If you don't see the problem with one person having a vote weighting more than another, all the while defending the concept of democracy, then I guess I can only wonder about cognitive dissonance.

 

[Commodore]

If you don't see the problem with one person having a vote weighting more than another, all the while defending the concept of democracy, then I guess I can only wonder about cognitive dissonance.

The fact that you have now resorted to personal attacks tells me you have no valid counter argument.

Owen, I will respond to you when I'm back on my laptop. Whenever I try to respond to your post on my tablet, my whole damn browser freezes up for some reason.