>>717428997 I don't see why farmers should have more say in how the government is run compared to someone who lives in the city. And I'm from Wyoming I know a thing or two about states with small populations.
>>717429094 >I don't see why farmers should have more say in how the government is run compared to someone who lives in the city. So if the farmers don't have a say, why even be a part of the country? Kiss your food and airspace goodbye, faggot.
>>717429341 >the number of votes a state gets in the electoral college is based upon its population it isn't. Alaska for example had a population of 655,435 but got 3 in the 2004 election. so 1 electoral per 218,478 people take Florida on the other hand, with a population of 17,397,161 they had 27 electoral votes. so 1 electoral vote per 644,339. New York had a population of 19,227,088 and had 31 electoral votes, so 1 vote per 620226.
So New York is the least represented of the 3 countries despite having the biggest population.
>>717428848 My idea: Keep the senate as-is. Two statewide seats, winner take all.
The house: each party that gets at least 10%gets a member in each congressional district. Let's say, R, D and Green, but in most districts it will be D and R. Each Rep nominated by the party becomes a congressman, but their vote (I.e. Their power) is weighted by the percentage they get in the general election. So, let's say the R gets 60%, the D 30% and the G 10%. All three become congressmen. The benefit of the system is this: for non-political things you can always go to your guy (social security cases, passports, etc) as far as the legislature voting, passing a bill requires building a coalition. Party becomes less important because you have to cobble together a majority based on the reps weighted votes.
Presidency: same thing. Two presidents (or just do away with VP and make the VP the second place electoral vote getter) and their policy strength is weighted.
>>717429999 Make fun of the constitution all you want, but even though the US is one of the youngest nations on the planet, the Constitution is currently the longest-existing government charter of all the governments on the planet. Every single other nation has had a RE-write since the US constitution was ratified. So, yeah, suck it.
Now the system does have some logic. it strengthens low population states like Alaska by making a single Alaskan vote be worth more, which gives more focus to those states and their issues which would be otherwise ignored by the popular vote.
>>717430391 not sure why they shouldn't be ignored though. until there's more people int hose states, who gives a fuck abuot them really? they're always represented in the sentate anyway and to a lesser degree in the house.
if it's an issue that affects 6 of those small states, they're combined strength will give them power. and if an issue only affects alaska, but not the other less populated states who gives a fuck about them?
>>717430183 the math is complex and I dont understand it myself, but its based on the census the goverment does every 10 years (which isn't an accurate count, but an estimate and an estimate which many claim is faulty and needs to be improved) to decide the population size of each state. then based on some math I dont understand they get assigned seats in the congress/senate. now based on those numbers of seats + 2 is the number of electoral votes you get.
now this +2 is probably the biggest issue because for example Alaska has only 1 seat, so by giving them th flat +2 you essentially triple their power, while for New York with its 29 seats, the flat +2 is a meager 6.89% increase.
but then you get the issue that small states like Alaska will be mostly ignored for it and big states will basically dominate the voting process. you need to protect the minority somehow.
And dont get me started on the the various laws manipulating who can and cant vote and how relatively large minorities like blacks and latinos are essentially banned from voting for even the smallest criminal charges (like drug possession. even if its just pot)
>>717430623 Because then they will be ignored as a minority and you threaten minority rights - which is kind of an important democratic and human rights principle.
>>717428848 The only fair system is one person one vote.
>fixes jerrymandering >fixes politicials ignoring small town america >fixes popular candidates losing
We should also have an instant run-off election system to allow third-party candidates a fair shot of winning. And fixed, publicly provided election campaign funding. And moderated debates where each candidate gets the same amount of airtime.
>>717431077 minority doesn't have to be racial/ethic/religious minority. Alaskans are a geographical minority in the the US because there are so few of them compared to the rest of the US. and yes, they do have minority rights, they deserve to be heard and represented like any other. they have their own set of issues which they worry about.
>>717431386 well now you're just entering a debate of what minorities should be and shouldn't be represented in the government - which is a completely different can of worms here that I dont want to get into.
I'll just remark on this minority specifically, since the elections and the entirely country is divided up into states then I think that minor states should have their rights protected in some capacity and measures taken to make sure their voices - and votes- and simply being ignored by the majority.
now I DONT think the current system with the electoral college does that in a good measure, and I admit I dont know what is a good system, but I still believe that small countries should have some protection.
Maybe after trumps 8 years are up and the US sees massive job growth and the middle class becomes a thing again you will see why we needed trump. Aw who am i kidding. everything good trump dose people like you will give his credit to Obama just like the surge in the stock market.
>>717428848 Let's see So we go with popular vote, democrats get control, so they put in superdelegates, and all of a sudden no popular vote, so we are even worse off than now. Dems don't trust the voters, only the party elite.
>>717428848 Nay. It was originally envisioned so that states would have electoral votes which equaled the number of senators plus representatives, but a ceiling was placed on the number of representatives about a century after the constitution was written, so it's no longer balanced with population size as intended. It's already broken and mutated outside of what the founders put in place, so kill it the rest of the way.
I think there is a bigger issue, why is the elections and the entire country divided into a stupid binary democrat vs. republican system. There are so many issues and there is no way you can vote for those issues with a stupid binary part system. sure theres the "third parties" but they're a joke. the entire system needs an overhaul.
Stop the Republican/Democrat bullshit and start looking at issues on an individual basis.
>>717432044 Superdelegates aren't part of the general election YET And a corrupt system is a corrupt system Sorry you don't like that system represents states not people. It's the United States of America, not the country of California and New York
>>717431034 If given the choice between 51% bossing over 49%, or 49% bossing over 51%, you would have to be a literal retard to pick the latter.
The electoral college makes the vote of a fucking hillbilly like three times as valuable as a person from new jersey.
Face it, Hillary won the election. The electoral college is a disgrace, almost every single democratic country in the world follows the popular vote in one way or another, stop pretending that its in any way shape or form a 'good' system.
>>717432320 not the anon you were replying to buy the 1 vote for the small state is by no means suppose to give it power to fight toe to toe with the big states, it just gives them a little boost if they're trying to form a coalition with other small states to defend themselves against large states, there are far more small states with 1 or 2 votes than states with 10+ votes.
>>717432425 No, I'm in Pennsylvania, my vote mattered this time, usually my vote is cancelled by Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, it's the way the system works, there is no reason the two coast should have control of the election, we are a big country that needs representation for the whole country, I don't know what is best for you and you don't know what is best for me
I wouldn't have been pissed if Trump won by the popular vote, I'd just be even more fucking fearful than I all ready am. I'm not even from the US, but we're looking at some sort of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact 2.0 with Trump and Putin, and we all know how that shit ended.
The difference is that while the leadership of nazi germany and soviet russia was similar in strength, Trump is going to be the weaker party here.
the biggest problem comes into play when there is no corresponding popular vote win. then, like now with trump and like W, there is a strong whiff of illegitimate hanging over the president. it took 9-11 to sort that out for W.
trump is even worse shape with the russia thing hovering.
>>717433122 It all concerns me, I think every state should split their delegates, not a popular vote but better representation of the whole state instead of winner take all. Gerrymandering is corruption of the system but both parties do it, so neither side will fix it, and here is is slow blend of city to rural, I don't know here I would cut lines at. My brother lives in New Castle, five minutes you from ghetto to Amish horse and buggy
>>717433350 All of our institutions, from banks to media to governments and schools are suffering from a long ongoing legitimacy crisis and putting more Homo Sapiens Lupini into positions of power can only deepen the legitimacy crisis so ongoing conflicts blossoming into global nuclear war seems inevitable at this point
>>717430836 Who the fuck ever told you that we're a democracy? we're a motherfucking republic. I hate when people bitch about "this isn't how democracy should work." bitch we're not a democracy and only the morons pretend we are.
Not following the news? His foundation is corrupt as fuck, he swore he never took a dollar from it and it's under investigation. Turns out he took money from it all the time. He's trying to dissolve the foundation but can't while it's under investigation.
Your sarcasm is cute though. It must be fun being an ignorant teenager that somehow knows everything.
>>717430836 I think you're mistaking a republic for an oligarchy, or you're incorrectly using the word literal. either way you should go back to school because the US is not a democracy and never has been... we're a republic
>>717433646 >Records show that 37 percent of Detroit precincts had more votes casts than they had registered voters in the November election. Specifically, that's 248 suspect precincts out of the city's 662 precincts. Not republican
considering that all the voter fraud we've heard of were people of color making fake votes for hillary or the bizarre situation in detroit where 97% reportedly voted for hillary but 37% of their polling stations reported more votes than voters, we still don't have a proper system in place for voting. i wonder if rejects would complain about using a fingerprint reader for each vote.
if we could actually make the popular vote real--WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY--then it might be ok but that might take a decade of testing.
>>717433967 Sorry, i meant to say mentally damaging to the point of which the system causes symptoms due to the sheer ineffectiveness resembling but not limited to: autism, down syndrome, retardation, and cancer.
the good thing about having essentially 2 election results is we can see when it's a really close race. if both agree then it must be a clear win. when it's not, then it was so close there's no real clear mandate.
>>717434515 >trusting guns You shouldn't "trust" a gun. They need to be handled safely to prevent injury. Don't use guns as an analogy if you don't know anything about their use and proper handling or you'll come off as a retard. You should also take care when using a computer to safeguard yourself as well. Do you even think before you type? I seriously hope this is bait anon. This level of detachment, cherrypicking, and straw grasping is pathetic.
>>717435026 Everybody I know lives on their ranch or farm, They might be planting for some big ag company but they are on the farm. I'm sure the profit is counted at an urban center like most manufacturing is realized at the corporate headquarters
>>717428966 I'm for it because one giant politically charged crime infested city should not hold the same influence as an entire different state bc the welfare population has boomed in the ghettos of the city and they want more dem. If we had to get rid of one, 1) one nasty murderous, crime/drug cultured, liberal, rainbow parade, polluted, welfare run california slum[L.A.] or 2) a state where all a disproportionately high amount of food is produced [breadbasket of the world]through industry and where real american businessmen and earners come from? ????
The constitution has already been amended to reflect something closer to a popular vote in the presidential election; the original stipulation was that the Senate elected the president, which gave an equal voice to each state, due to the fact that the nation was composed of states, not of people.
With the revision to weight the states based upon population, we introduced the current system, balancing the two extremes; neither winning the most votes, nor the most states, will secure a victory.
The problem with pointing to the popular vote margin that Hillary secured is that we're debating the rules after the game has been played. Her margin was nearly all from California, a state so heavily "blue" that most Republican voters don't even vote anymore in presidential elections, and no GOP nominee seriously campaigns there. To speculate that the popular vote count would have been the same if the presidency were dependent upon popular vote is like arguing that an NFL team should have won the super bowl because they gained more yards, despite the fact that they scored fewer points. Discuss it all day, but both teams will play differently if the rules are different.
It's sad that 95% of people who voice an opinion are coming from the "Trump won, so the EC worked just as it should" or "Hillary lost, so let's get rid of the EC" and neither side seems to understand why we have it or how things would change if we didn't. From that perspective, the efforts of both parties to "dumb down" America to a pool of low-information voters has been wildly successful.
>>717435965 Thought that would upset your delicate disposition. According to the votes YOU certainly won't have any authority for a while. Hope you enjoyed the ride while it lasted, we've got it from here pedro.
>>717429341 You have fallen for what the liberal media told you >>tyrant No. Just no. Please research the electoral college. It keeps a few large overpopulated cities from controlling too much of the other are
The assumption bringing about this debate is the outcome of the election would be different without the ec. It's possible but consider how campaigns would change their strategy.
With the ec, the campaigns focus on a small number of bg states, making sure their supporters vote there as well as attempts to sway independents.
Without the ec, the campaigns only goal should be to make sure they're supporters vote and they would be having to spend a lot more money all over the country instead of a few select areas to pull this off.
Now combine that with states like Ca or TX which are very much in the column for a particular party. Voters supporting the opposite party in those states get a little lazy because their vote won't change anything. However, without the ec, the election is on the line as their vote matters.
More republicans would vote in blue states, more dems would vote in red states.
All I'm saying is the assertion that Clinton would've won without ec is far from a certainty and I'm not sure i like how campaigns would function or the funds they would require in the absense of EC.
>>717436246 I --think-- I follow your point, but I'm not certain, since you didn't make one.
I believe you're saying that if every state gave EC votes proportionally that the EC would have reflected the popular vote more closely, or something to that effect.
Which is in the same category as "water is wet."
Please read, and try to comprehend, the remainder of my post. To argue that the candidates' strategies, or the voters' turnout would have been the same if there were a different set of guidelines for the election is a waste of time. The EC, in its current state, balances the federal nature of our government with an unbalanced distribution of population, and is quite effective in mitigating both "mob rule" and an over-represented minority. There are parts of both still at work, but neither "wins" the day.
>>717428848 Well seeing as trump won only because of the electoral collage i would say nay as it failed to do one of the main things it was invented to do. stop the back water rednecks from electing a retard into the white house. Plus its 2017 we dont need an electoral collage
The pop vote would make things too volatile. The EC keeps the mob from changing too much at once. I suspect Obama will be viewed as an exception to this rule through the lens of history 100 years from now. Trump actually seems to be rolling things back to before Obama, nothing more. But truely, it's too soon to tell.
The constitution is hard to amend for a reason. We can't let microchasms in politics be an excuse to overturn something that has a pretty good track record since the 18th century.
>>717429150 That is only true if the system remains as is with evereything being devided into districts. Why remove the electoral collage just to leave the system exactly the same? If they made it a true vote where who ever gets the most votes in aggregate wins the election this would not be an issue. Also a few states already dictate the elections they are called swing states they decide who is going to be preident every year.
>>717429150 I love when people say shit like this, you're implying that everyone in NY or Cali votes for only one party, when we have Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states. yeah they're out voted but with the winner take all systems not everyone's vote counts. Basically getting rid of the electoral college removes the boundary of voting by state and every single vote has weight to it
Interestingly, the only times in recent history where the ec had selected a candidate in second place on the popular vote (2000 and 2016) have been cases where neither candidate got 50+% of the vote. So a candidate might have received a plurality of vote but certainly not the majority.
You could say that this most recent election was undecided concerning the popular vote and the electoral college made the decision. You cannot say the majority of voters wanted Clinton.
Id say if you can't convince 50.01% to vote for you, there's something wrong and either an election with new candidates is needed or another system such as an electoral college should pick the winner.
Perhaps the ec should be a little more free to use discretion when no candate has topped 50%. Maybe we would end up with a better person than clinton or trump as it speaks volumes that neither one could top 50.
>>717428966 Without it the us is governed by people who live a in a bubble like NYC and LA. I live in NYC and city people are fucking retarded. Let's face it, your average human is pretty retarded but at least rural opinions are based in reality.
>>717428848 >but muh 98.9% chance to win the media has shown that since trump announced his bid that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. every day it was "trump isn't going to win" "trump has no chance" "trump is orange" instead of talking about policies he wanted, policies he'd change/remove, or laws he wanted passed/removed. nah, lets talk about those fake sexual assault charges.
>>717429150 >you vote be worth next to nothing You seem confused. Every vote would count the exact same. There are lots of conservatives in CA and NY, just like there are lots of liberals in TX and GA. Currently, those people I just mentioned... their vote is worthless. No electoral college means their vote counts for something.
>>717428848 nay. the argument that it wouldnt be distributed is stupid because instead of big cities getting the say its random states that are indecisive of what party they like that have the most valuable votes
>>717434408 >phew, for a secod there i was worried i would have to acknowledge how obvious his statement was, but luckily i found an out. He mentioned studies, and you surely don't believe that illegals don't vote.
>>717429341 Seriously guys just google what the founding fathers thought about democracy. You will learn more then debating this back and forth like fucking autists. We have the electoral college so that a candidate has to win over ALL of America, not just the major cities. Without it we wouldn't not be a nation of sovereign states and small states would have zero reason to be apart of the US as they will be totally unrepresented
>>717441124 That's not what the EC was for, it was because the founding fathers though the public was to stupid to vote and needed a backup plan in case they vote a moron into office. Not sure why someone would like a system that calls you stupid
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.