This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Picklebobble · 56-60, M
There are serious questions to be asked about the continued validity of the Electoral College.
Quite why it exists in the first place is down to the Founding fathers believing that THEY knew better than the population !
Might mean nothing in a case of an overwhelming majority.
But when it comes to close run elections, people you didn't vote for get to decide who your president is !!!
And that is somebody's definition of democratic !!!
www.ibtimes.com/why-does-electoral-college-exist-history-how-American-presidential-system-works-2442013
Quite why it exists in the first place is down to the Founding fathers believing that THEY knew better than the population !
Might mean nothing in a case of an overwhelming majority.
But when it comes to close run elections, people you didn't vote for get to decide who your president is !!!
And that is somebody's definition of democratic !!!
www.ibtimes.com/why-does-electoral-college-exist-history-how-American-presidential-system-works-2442013
Manganesia · 26-30, F
Okay bt lets see wht happens previous predictions were wrong so no need 2 rely on predictions tht doesnt follow rules
Picklebobble · 56-60, M
@Manganesia: It's the cornerstone of U.S. politics.
It effectively suggests that you can give the common man a vote but it means nothing.
We have a similar problem in the UK.
Only here governments wouldn't dare question people's voting, so they adjust boundary lines.
Trying to be "more inclusive" is how they try and sell it to people.
But really it just tries to skew the vote so that the current government is seen to have a higher slice of the vote.
It effectively suggests that you can give the common man a vote but it means nothing.
We have a similar problem in the UK.
Only here governments wouldn't dare question people's voting, so they adjust boundary lines.
Trying to be "more inclusive" is how they try and sell it to people.
But really it just tries to skew the vote so that the current government is seen to have a higher slice of the vote.
Manganesia · 26-30, F
Picklebobble · 56-60, M
Well. You need 270 seats to have a majority and thus become president.
Trump scored 290.
So he has a mandate. Albeit a slim one !
The shocker is that Clinton only scored 228.
So on votes alone, the Democrats have nothing to challenge !
They were soundly beaten since the scores aren't even close !
Trump polled 47% of the vote.
Which is something of a worry.
He becomes president but didnt even get the support of half his country !
Trump scored 290.
So he has a mandate. Albeit a slim one !
The shocker is that Clinton only scored 228.
So on votes alone, the Democrats have nothing to challenge !
They were soundly beaten since the scores aren't even close !
Trump polled 47% of the vote.
Which is something of a worry.
He becomes president but didnt even get the support of half his country !
Manganesia · 26-30, F
@Picklebobble: THAT IS WHERE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTING SYSTEM IS TRICKY OR GETS TRICKY
Picklebobble · 56-60, M
@Manganesia: No justification or need for it as far as I can see.
If you truly want a democracy, one man - one vote.
First past the post wins !
If you truly want a democracy, one man - one vote.
First past the post wins !
@Picklebobble: There are VERY few countries that use the popular vote to choose their leader. Maybe 10? If the US went strictly off popular vote then California, New York, Florida, and Texas would pick our president in every election. Politicians would cater to those states with the highest population and the rest of the country would literally not have a vote that's worth anything.
It's also not at all surprising that the winner of an election not receive 50% of the vote when there are more than two people to vote for.
It's also not at all surprising that the winner of an election not receive 50% of the vote when there are more than two people to vote for.
Picklebobble · 56-60, M
@NoOneYouKnow: ???
Why would three states dictate who your president was going to be ?
If it were one man,one vote nobody would decide.
Majority wins !
Also, you guys are going to have to come up with a way of introducing at least one other party.
The idea that the worlds biggest democracy revolves around just two parties is daft.
Why would three states dictate who your president was going to be ?
If it were one man,one vote nobody would decide.
Majority wins !
Also, you guys are going to have to come up with a way of introducing at least one other party.
The idea that the worlds biggest democracy revolves around just two parties is daft.
@Picklebobble: Those states have the highest population numbers. If all you need is the popular vote, you only need a few key areas. This government is set up with checks and balances. The electoral college is one of those checks. This is a large country with ideals that vary from region to region. Regional conflicts have plagued large and diverse nations. The Electoral College is a good check to the problem of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the country. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.
Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Who thinks that is a good idea?
Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Who thinks that is a good idea?
Picklebobble · 56-60, M
The 'few key areas' answer makes no sense !
If that were the case, reduce the number of states !
Anything other than first past the post is messy !
There are countries in Europe who use proportional representation as a method of voting, and it just doesn't work !
And it still doesn't address the issue of folk feeling like their vote isn't made to count !
And what's wrong with re-organising both houses anyway ?
We keep screaming that in the UK !
Anything Parliament wants to do has to be cleared through the Lords.
Consequently whoever the sitting prime minister is tries to promote folk to the House of Lords who are known to be sympathetic to the government.
That way they get their agenda through.
But even we decided to do away with the voting rights for peers who inherited their seat in the Lords.
If that were the case, reduce the number of states !
Anything other than first past the post is messy !
There are countries in Europe who use proportional representation as a method of voting, and it just doesn't work !
And it still doesn't address the issue of folk feeling like their vote isn't made to count !
And what's wrong with re-organising both houses anyway ?
We keep screaming that in the UK !
Anything Parliament wants to do has to be cleared through the Lords.
Consequently whoever the sitting prime minister is tries to promote folk to the House of Lords who are known to be sympathetic to the government.
That way they get their agenda through.
But even we decided to do away with the voting rights for peers who inherited their seat in the Lords.
@Picklebobble: How does it not make any sense. Look at this map. It's who won each individual county in the election. The blue counties are the ones Hillary won. It's such a small portion of the country, yet enough to win the popular vote. It shows exactly why the popular vote idea favors a very select few areas. Why should those relatively few counties in this country get to decide who the president is?
I do agree that there needs to be a stronger presence of a third party. There are a couple trying, but not getting any traction. They're not even allowed in the major debates. I'm not sure who decides who is and isn't allowed in the debates, maybe the media outlet that's hosting it?
I do agree that there needs to be a stronger presence of a third party. There are a couple trying, but not getting any traction. They're not even allowed in the major debates. I'm not sure who decides who is and isn't allowed in the debates, maybe the media outlet that's hosting it?
Picklebobble · 56-60, M
How does 'popular vote' favour 'select few' ?
It's a contradiction in terms.
It's a contradiction in terms.
@Picklebobble: It favors a select few areas, not a select few people. So let's pretend we used the popular vote. This country would be run by those on the east and west coasts. Those areas with the most votes have the most power. Politicians would cater to them and give them whatever they want for votes. Hell, if california decided it wanted a pipeline to use water from the great lakes it would have the votes to get it done. The entire middle of the country would have no say in anything because the population density isn't high enough. I read an article that basically compared a US that used the popular vote to the hunger games. A few very well off and powerful areas while the rest of the country is just there, dealing with what is decided for them.
Picklebobble · 56-60, M
Ok so why do areas with most votes have most power ?
And again, because it's so clearly under representative surely that's an argument for ensuring they have less power rather than more.
Because at least that would be democratic in relation to all states.
Sorry. But it just sounds as though you need money to create power to assert influence.
And if you're poor you're not even going to get a look in !
And again, because it's so clearly under representative surely that's an argument for ensuring they have less power rather than more.
Because at least that would be democratic in relation to all states.
Sorry. But it just sounds as though you need money to create power to assert influence.
And if you're poor you're not even going to get a look in !
If we were to use the popular vote then the areas with the most people would have the most votes, and therefore have the most power. What percentage of that map would you say is blue? It's enough to win the popular vote. I don't understand how anyone could look at that map and say "whoever won the blue parts should be president."
You're right though, you do need money. It's pricey to live on the coasts. Switching to the popular vote would most definitely leave the average person on the outside trying to look in.
You're right though, you do need money. It's pricey to live on the coasts. Switching to the popular vote would most definitely leave the average person on the outside trying to look in.
Picklebobble · 56-60, M
@Picklebobble: I appreciate an intelligent conversation. I can see both sides of the argument in regards to the electoral college. I tend to lean towards getting rid of it being a bad idea. What's in place now isn't perfect, it's not going to make everyone happy, but it's probably our best option. IF anything were going to change, it sure wouldn't happen in time for this election anyways.