Red Mosquito

verb_to_trust wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote: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?

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

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

PHATJ wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote: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?

Monkey_Driven wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote: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.

Captain Termite wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Captain Termite wrote: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.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

PHATJ wrote: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

Green Habit wrote:

PHATJ wrote: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.)

BurtReynolds wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote: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 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

PHATJ wrote: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?

BurtReynolds wrote:In conclusion, you're all, as usual, wrong.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote: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 wrote: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.

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.