Red Mosquito

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Interesting: If you don't count CA, Trump won by 1.4 million votes.

Interesting: if you don't count Texas and Alabama, Clinton won by over 4 million votes.

Or maybe interesting isn't the word.

4.27 million vote margin for Clinton in CA is pretty big. She had about the same number of votes there as total people that voted in TX. It's interesting in the sense that CA is so powerful that direct-democracy-wise they would essentially rule the country. Maybe that is enough of an argument to keep the electoral college.

This argument supposes that the rule should be dependent on the political makeup of the populous states. If CA is heavy left or right, the EC makes sense, but if it's evenly split the popular vote makes sense. I reject that mode entirely. The decision should be based on which is the most democratic system, with no consideration of the current political makeup of the individual states. If we use political demographics to make this decision what makes sense today might not make sense a few generations from now.

That was not my intent, I could make the same argument if CA was solid red. I guess I was pondering how any other state would make it's voice heard. Without the EC it seems like you could campaign just in CA, TX, NY, FL, and then a bit around Chicago and Philly. Perhaps percentage of a states electors derived from the popular vote?

Maybe we should let people decide, and not states.

Maybe we shouldn't have a president.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Maybe we should let people decide, and not states.

But the people in CA have different needs and focus areas from the people in FL from the people in North Dakota from the people in Texas.

Bi_3 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Maybe we should let people decide, and not states.

But the people in CA have different needs and focus areas from the people in FL from the people in North Dakota from the people in Texas.

Yet we elect one person to lead us.

Yeah, that's kind of unavoidable in a country of our size and diversity in terms of population, region, etc.

I think the thing about the EC argument is that it really doesn't equalize the playing field. It makes certain people's votes count less and others' votes count more. Maybe there's an argument that that is still the right thing to do, but the EC doesn't give those smaller states a more equitable say in the election. It gives them an outsized say in comparison to their coastal counterparts.

There's no great answer. Theoretically, I personally think the best option would be to apportion EC votes in per state by the popular vote in that state, but that's likely impossible and would lead to countless recounts. The next least bad option that correlates to what the American people have chosen is a popular vote.

what digster said

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Maybe we should let people decide, and not states.

But the people in CA have different needs and focus areas from the people in FL from the people in North Dakota from the people in Texas.

Yet we elect one person to lead us.

This is why we need secession!

Or just not have a lousy, outdated election for a lousy, outdated position.

The real issue here is that those highly populous states aren't just "bigger," they are also home to industries that represent a much larger share of our economy. So by trying to protect South Dakota from being effectively silenced, we also synthetically increase the value of legislatively nurturing less lucrative industries. We amplify weaker economic deliverers at the cost of reducing government's motivation to support innovative or more future facing ones. While rising nations focus on developing their future, we manipulate ourselves into anchoring to the past.

I think the question I'm always curious about when considering support for the EC is the question of if there is a number that is just too high. Clinton won the popular vote by close to 3 million. The trends that allowed this to occur (liberals tending to move to urban areas, more sparsely populated swing states get redder, etc.) are likely only going to increase. It's not inconceivable that in the future we could see wider gaps, and it seems to only be to the detriment of one party. Is something like 5 million too much, for example?

we manipulate ourselves into anchoring to the past.

#make america great again

you don't say.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Even the bird guy gets it.

where is my tax cut

if the EC hadn't actually elected trump, the gun-toting wackos of this country would have totally flipped their shit

tragabigzanda wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

bada wrote:Seems like a gamble for the Dems. What if latinos end up being more conservative than they assume?

I don't really know why it's assumed they wouldn't be conservative. Liberal race condescension, I guess?

My own mistake was assuming that immigration policy would be their primary motivator for voting.

So...liberal race condescension?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:There's a pretty deep strain of Catholicism among Mexican Americans, which I imagine must push a lot of them right.

Explain to me why my assumption is condescending, but yours is not?

the difference is that i am a smug douchebag

I really don't see a difference there.

argo how smug r u