Election 2020

[Monkey_Driven]

Josh, have you ever lived in a truly rural area? I'm genuinely curious.

[PHATJ]

You're not one of those idiots who thinks Russia is our friend are you Josh?

Where the hell do you get that? I’ve never said anything positive about Russia. Are you one of these idiots that thinks anyone that supports the president is a Russian sympathizer?

So you just unwittingly support Russian disinformation, it's not overt?

Guess I should just move to the Kremlin.

[PHATJ]

Josh, have you ever lived in a truly rural area? I'm genuinely curious.

I’ve lived in a town of approximately 500 people that is 120 miles from the nearest major city. Does that count?

[Green Habit]

That’s a hypothetical situation that isn’t in any way a possibility or reality. So who gives a shit?

Alright, let's go with something that actually happened, then. Why should Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas all be separate states, when their combined population is less than that of Connecticut? (And CT, of course, is a tiny state by area.)

[Monkey_Driven]

Josh, have you ever lived in a truly rural area? I'm genuinely curious.

I’ve lived in a town of approximately 500 people that is 120 miles from the nearest major city. Does that count?

Yes, it does!

In my experiences most US citizens have a lot of the same priorities and most of those priorities are mainly addressed by local and state politics. At a national level, those rural areas are never going to get the same level of attention as urban areas because there's no money in it. The electoral process doesn't change that.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[BurtReynolds]

Josh, have you ever lived in a truly rural area? I'm genuinely curious.

I’ve lived in a town of approximately 500 people that is 120 miles from the nearest major city. Does that count?

Yes, it does!

In my experiences most US citizens have a lot of the same priorities and most of those priorities are mainly addressed by local and state politics. At a national level, those rural areas are never going to get the same level of attention as urban areas because there's no money in it. The electoral process doesn't change that.

In my experience local/state government is powerless to address the priorities of its constituents because of federal overreach.

[PHATJ]

Is the implication that people's votes should count less if they live near other people?

The implication is that a few tiny pockets of dense population should not be able to impose their will over massive amounts of land and tens of millions of people spread over an entire country. The electoral college was invented to ensure even the “forgotten little people” outside of the powerful cities have an equal say in Presidential elections.

I don't think you have the mechanics of it right, or you're mixing things up with the rationale for the structure of the senate.

For example, New York State gets lots of electoral votes because of its dense population centers, and all the rural voters put together can't outvote the NYC metro area so it seems like those "forgotten little people" in small-town New York get less of a say because of the electoral college.

Prevention of an urban-centric victory

Proponents of the Electoral College claim that it prevents a candidate from winning the presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas, and pushes candidates to make a wider geographic appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote. They believe that adoption of the popular vote would disproportionately shift the focus to large cities at the expense of rural areas.

Maintenance of the federal character of the nation

The United States of America is a federal coalition that consists of component states. Proponents of the current system argue the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically equivalent, portion of a very populous state. The system also allows each state the freedom, within constitutional bounds, to design its own laws on voting and enfranchisement without an undue incentive to maximize the number of votes cast.

For many years early in the nation's history, up until the Jacksonian Era, many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the president must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government.

In his book A More Perfect Constitution, Professor Larry Sabato elaborated on this advantage of the Electoral College, arguing to "mend it, don't end it," in part because of its usefulness in forcing candidates to pay attention to lightly populated states and reinforcing the role of the state in federalism.

Enhancement of the status of minority groups

Instead of decreasing the power of minority groups by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide variety of such minorities and advocacy groups.

[Green Habit]

That’s a hypothetical situation that isn’t in any way a possibility or reality. So who gives a shit?

Alright, let's go with something that actually happened, then. Why should Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas all be separate states, when their combined population is less than that of Connecticut? (And CT, of course, is a tiny state by area.)

leave me out of this

Sorry, I did think about you when I posted that.

I forget, are you east or west of the continental divide? I consider the western portion part of the Northwest, since it was part of the old Oregon Territory.

[PHATJ]

That’s a hypothetical situation that isn’t in any way a possibility or reality. So who gives a shit?

Alright, let's go with something that actually happened, then. Why should Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas all be separate states, when their combined population is less than that of Connecticut? (And CT, of course, is a tiny state by area.)

So your point is because they have a less dense population they don’t deserve statehood?

[Monkey_Driven]

Josh, have you ever lived in a truly rural area? I'm genuinely curious.

I’ve lived in a town of approximately 500 people that is 120 miles from the nearest major city. Does that count?

Yes, it does!

In my experiences most US citizens have a lot of the same priorities and most of those priorities are mainly addressed by local and state politics. At a national level, those rural areas are never going to get the same level of attention as urban areas because there's no money in it. The electoral process doesn't change that.

In my experience local/state government is powerless to address the priorities of its constituents because of federal overreach.

It's certainly a factor too. So is local corruption, voter turnout, etc. Rural areas have a lot of shitty things working against them.

[BurtReynolds]

I do think the Electoral College protects the interests of rural states, and for that reason I'm for it, but it's certainly not fair to populous ones. Fairness can't really be achieved in a wide open democracy either, though. It would just tilt the scale in the other direction.

Fairness is overrated.

[BurtReynolds]

In conclusion, you're all, as usual, wrong.

[verb_to_trust]

That’s a hypothetical situation that isn’t in any way a possibility or reality. So who gives a shit?

Alright, let's go with something that actually happened, then. Why should Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas all be separate states, when their combined population is less than that of Connecticut? (And CT, of course, is a tiny state by area.)

So your point is because they have a less dense population they don’t deserve statehood?

Really? That's what you're taking from it?

[verb_to_trust]

In conclusion, you're all, as usual, wrong.

Yeah? Well you like fat chicks

[BurtReynolds]

Josh, have you ever lived in a truly rural area? I'm genuinely curious.

I’ve lived in a town of approximately 500 people that is 120 miles from the nearest major city. Does that count?

Yes, it does!

In my experiences most US citizens have a lot of the same priorities and most of those priorities are mainly addressed by local and state politics. At a national level, those rural areas are never going to get the same level of attention as urban areas because there's no money in it. The electoral process doesn't change that.

In my experience local/state government is powerless to address the priorities of its constituents because of federal overreach.

It's certainly a factor too. So is local corruption, voter turnout, etc. Rural areas have a lot of shitty things working against them.

Don't rural areas have a higher voter turnout than urban ones? And local corruption is more easily addressed by locals than federal corruption coming from a government a thousand miles away.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Monkey_Driven]

I do think the Electoral College protects the interests of rural states, and for that reason I'm for it, but it's certainly not fair to populous ones. Fairness can't really be achieved in a wide open democracy either, though. It would just tilt the scale in the other direction.

Fairness is overrated.

[Green Habit]

Prevention of an urban-centric victory

Proponents of the Electoral College claim that it prevents a candidate from winning the presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas, and pushes candidates to make a wider geographic appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote. They believe that adoption of the popular vote would disproportionately shift the focus to large cities at the expense of rural areas.

The Electoral College isn't biased against large or small states, nor is it biased against urban or rural areas. It's biased in favor of swing states. California gets ignored as much as Wyoming does because neither state is competitive. And within those states, Los Angeles and Redding, as well as Cheyenne and Evanston, all get ignored regardless of their urban or rural lean.

Maintenance of the federal character of the nation

The United States of America is a federal coalition that consists of component states. Proponents of the current system argue the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically equivalent, portion of a very populous state. The system also allows each state the freedom, within constitutional bounds, to design its own laws on voting and enfranchisement without an undue incentive to maximize the number of votes cast.

For many years early in the nation's history, up until the Jacksonian Era, many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the president must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government.

In his book A More Perfect Constitution, Professor Larry Sabato elaborated on this advantage of the Electoral College, arguing to "mend it, don't end it," in part because of its usefulness in forcing candidates to pay attention to lightly populated states and reinforcing the role of the state in federalism.

Unlike the Senate, the Electoral College still has a pretty big weight in favor of more populous states. There is a numerical bias in favor of less populous ones, but as I described above that gets drowned out by the swing state bias.

Enhancement of the status of minority groups

Instead of decreasing the power of minority groups by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide variety of such minorities and advocacy groups.

Which minorities in particular are protected by the Electoral College, and why should they be?

[bune]

Jesus Christ, Thanksgiving was two weeks ago why is Uncle Politics in this thread?