SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Absurdity of the Electoral College:
Here's one nice thing we can now say about the Electoral College: it's slightly less harmful to our democracy than it was just days ago. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to "bind" their electors, requiring them to support whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in their state. Justice Elena Kagan's opinion was a blow to so-called "faithless electors," but a win for self-government. "Here," she wrote, "the People rule."
Yet while we can all breathe a sigh of relief that rogue electors won't choose (or be coerced) into derailing the 2020 presidential contest, the Court's unanimous ruling is a helpful reminder that our two-step electoral process provides America with no tangible benefits and near-limitless possibilities for disaster. To put it more bluntly, the Electoral College is a terrible idea. And thanks to the Justices' decision, getting rid of it has never been easier.
[...] The Electoral College, in other words, serves no useful purpose, other than to intermittently and randomly override the people's will. It's the appendix of our body politic. Most of the time we don't notice it, and then every so often it flares up and nearly kills us.
[...] Justice Kagan's words – "Here, the People rule" – are stirring. But today, they are still more aspiration than declaration. By declining to make the Electoral College an even great threat to our democracy, the Court did its job. Now it's up to us. If you live in a state that hasn't joined the interstate compact, you can urge your state legislators and your governor to sign on. And no matter where you're from, you can dispel the myths about the Electoral College and who it really helps, myths that still lead some people to support it despite its total lack of redeeming qualities.
More than 215 years after the Electoral College was last reformed with the 12th Amendment, we once again have the opportunity to protect our presidential-election process and reassert the people's will. Regardless of who wins the White House in 2020, it's a chance we should take.
Would you get rid of the Electoral College? Why or why not?
Also at:
Supremes Signal a Brave New World of Popular Presidential Elections
Supreme Court Rules State 'Faithless Elector' Laws Constitutional
U.S. Supreme Court curbs 'faithless electors' in presidential voting
Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @04:51PM (19 children)
>states have the right to "bind" their electors
States have control over their elections. Not really shocking or unexpected from this decision.
> the Electoral College is a terrible idea
>serves no useful purpose, other than to intermittently and randomly override the people's will
>reassert the people's will.
I don't hear many good criticisms for the E.C. I hear a lot of "undemocratic" or "Wyoming voter weight compared to California voter weight". These criticisms come off as though someone never knew about it until a 5 minute Youtube video "debunking" the E.C. Or they are democrats upset from 2000 or 2016 using "democracy" as a cover to give democrats more power.
Yes, it is undemocratic. So is the Senate. So is the judicial branch (federal, setting aside local judicial elections). Yes, Wyoming has the same representational power in the Senate as California despite being a fraction of the population. Yes, the courts override democratic initiatives all the time. Yes the E.C. is a combination of the Senate and House to elect a president. And? The Federal government is not a democracy.
The largest division in the US is between cities and rural communities. The Senate and the E.C. are acknowledgment to this division. I don't see or hear many alternatives.
>it's a chance we should take.
Except if you are in a flyover state. Then it's the only institution that ensures the POTUS would even acknowledge your existence.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 13 2020, @05:00PM (18 children)
You don't think on person's vote counting more than another person's vote is a good criticism?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:09PM (2 children)
No, it's not. A person's vote does not count on a federal level at all. It never has and was very explicitly never supposed to. Hell, originally the senate was appointed by the state officials rather than elected.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 13 2020, @05:32PM (1 child)
Pretty sure if it was my vote counting more than yours you'd have a different opinion on the matter...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:35PM
No, I wouldn't. As far as I'm concerned, the less federalization of our government we have, the better. The EC at least makes a nod to us being a union of sovereign nations rather than a single homogeneous shit pile.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:14PM (11 children)
No. I don't. Just like I don't think the Senate is fundamentally flawed because every state, regardless of size, has 2 votes via 2 Senators.
More to the point. The votes are equal. 1 vote in CA is the same as 1 vote in WY in that it can affect their respective elections. They are participating in different elections.
There is also equity argument to be made. The E.C. makes the government more equitable to a minority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:28PM (8 children)
"Equitable to a minority"? I'm all for "majority rule with minority rights", but the EC makes it "minority rule". The way the Constitution sets up the Senate, the minority doesn't make policy but if enough of them ally they can block policy. That makes sense, that's brilliant - the minority doesn't call the shots, but they can obstruct the majority.
But for the president, this is something else. The minority made the decision in 2000 and 2016, and it happened earlier too with Presidents Rutherford B Hayes and Benjamin Harrison. In this case, the minority is dictating policy and the majority has no means to obstruct until the next election. That's wrong, and everyone crowing about the value of the Electoral College today would be screaming if the exact same system had let someone they didn't support beat out their candidate that won the popular vote.
I know people also bring up the argument about protecting elections from the stupidity of the common many. That relies upon the idea that the voters for the minority candidate must be smarter than the general unwashed masses voting for the popular candidate. Again, that lets the people supporting the less popular candidate walk around with a smug sense of superiority - "we protected the country from the more popular candidate of the stupid people". But there's no evidence that the supporters of the candidate that won the electoral college are smarter. The results of the election are skewed, but not skewed for any good reason.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:33PM (1 child)
Untrue. I didn't vote for Trump and support the EC.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:40PM
Ok deplorable.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:41PM
>the EC makes it "minority rule"
5 times in the entirety of 232 years of US history. 5 out of 56 elections since 1788. "minority rule" is a stretch. More often than not, popular vote can predict the election. But. there are times when the minority gets an equitable outcome. Like Affirmative action.
What has happened more often is that the candidates campaign in smaller states and at least pretend to care about small state issues.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 13 2020, @05:44PM (4 children)
You're not winning any points in this argument.
Every single election cycle in my lifetime, has been decided by a minority. Don't believe me? Look at the history - rarely does more than 25, maybe 30% of the eligible voting body even bother to GET OUT AND VOTE!!
Like any other poorly designed, faulty poll, this poll FAILS because only self-selecting people respond.
In every single election cycle in my lifetime, the MAJORITY VOTED FOR NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!
So, ultimately, you're just whining that your minority may have been infinitesimally larger than the other minority. If you want "fair elections", you need to mandate that all eligible voters get off their phat couch potato asses, and VOTE!
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday July 13 2020, @06:34PM
None of the above definitely should be an option and if it wins, all the candidates on the list should be prohibited from participating in the next few cycles. This would bring most of the folks to vote.
Without, our democracy is a farce not worse participating in.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @07:23PM (2 children)
Only if you died in 1800 [electproject.org]. Actual numbers in recent elections are more like 60% for presidential elections, and 40% for mid-term congressional elections.
The really low numbers are for local elections - understandable, because at least where I am frequently there aren't many contested elections.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 13 2020, @09:50PM (1 child)
Hmmm - voting is roughly double what I said. And, I can't figure out how I arrived at my numbers. OK, thinking . . .
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @10:06PM
Well, given that 75.8% of statistics are just made up on the spot by somebody trying to push an opinion without doing research, I think that question answers itself.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:29PM
It's no good taking that tack. He only likes minorities when they do as they're told.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Monday July 13 2020, @11:03PM
Get rid of it. I'm not voting for the president of Florida, I'm voting for the President of the United States and my vote should count just the same as any other vote for the President of the United States, no more or no less.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @06:07PM (2 children)
A) https://soylentnews.org/politics/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=38449&page=1&cid=1020540#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
B) The president is elected by the States, not the US population. If you want to be a colonizing treaty breaker, change the system by force.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @07:25PM (1 child)
Regarding point B: The whole idea of the Interstate EC Compact is that the states who have adopted it are voluntarily changing how they decide who they send to vote for president. So no force required.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @08:14PM
The problem is that it effects the states that don't agree to it and which wouldn't have been part of the US to begin with, without an EC. You are essentially forcing a party to lose the benefit of a treaty because you don't like the way they think. IF the interstate compact gave objectors the right to choose whether or not they want peaceful secession, it would be justifiable, but without that, it reeks of colonial behavior and mindset. Essentially, you've taken up the underlying moral depravity of "the white man's burden" under the banner of "the Californian's and New Yorker's burden." It's not good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @04:53PM (16 children)
Wasn't the original purpose, essentially, because rich people were afraid of how poor people would vote?
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @04:59PM (11 children)
No. It was a rightful fear against a tyranny of the majority bullying small population states. The fact is, without the EC, there would be no United States because only a moron would bequeath all power to remote entities which often become deaf to the needs of those remote areas. The colonies had just got done fighting a revolution for that exact reason. Without the EC, they would have remade the essential characteristics of that against which they fought.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @05:24PM (10 children)
How does the electoral college address that? Larger states have more delegates than smaller ones.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:28PM (7 children)
Not proportionately more though. It was a compromise between one state, one vote and one person, one vote. Even back then the states with the largest populations wanted to be able to force their way of doing things on others or it would have been one state, one vote right from the start.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @07:57PM (6 children)
And how can this not be incorporated without electorate? Just have every state have X "presidental votes" that will be determined by the number of people voting for a candidate, i.e. you "win" one "presidental vote" per Y votes.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @08:25PM (5 children)
Because that wasn't the deal. A complicated way of doing one person one vote is just a complicated way of doing what the various independent nations ("states") rejected.
Again, if you want to change the treaty, those who don't agree with the new terms must be given the opportunity to decide to accept the new deal, or reclaim full status as an independent nation. If you don't give the individual nations comprising the US such a right, you are acting by force to impose a government on unwilling subjects of those objecting nations, and that makes you an imperialist colonizer as well as a treaty breaker.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:34PM (4 children)
Careful what you wish for. How about this: Election power based on GDP. If you don't like this and want to go independent be my guest. You think the states that are already struggling to make ends meet can continue without the federal money they get blown up their rear?
I don't think we want to go down that road.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @10:01PM (3 children)
How about not. To do it by GDP, or population, or number of butterflies -- you have to change the treaty. If all parties don't agree, then either the treaty stays in force or it doesn't and all of a sudden, you have a bunch of different nations causing problems for the NY-LA remainder.
Either live up to what you agreed to, or accept the fact that you are treaty breaking imperialist. That BTW, makes you a major asshole and the opposite of enlightened.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:48AM (2 children)
Let's do it by GDP, and if you feel you're misrepresented, you're free to leave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:18PM (1 child)
I do recall reading somewhere recently that the Democrats are now the party of the wealthy and corporate. They are long past the party of the worker or populists.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:18PM
They never were the party of the worker. You don't have a party of the worker. And if you want a populist whose main claim to eligibility is that he'll tell you whatever you want to hear, you already got Trump, that job is taken, too.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:18PM (1 child)
With no offense whatsoever intended, it's kind of scary you have to ask this question - but I suspect *many* might wonder the exact same thing. It's scary because the reason is what should be the absolute cornerstone of every political decision.
Big states want everything to be decided by population, so they can just increase the numbers are gradually control the entire country. Small states want everything to be decided by statehood, so they need not worry about a tyranny of the majority. The electoral college is a *compromise*. Bigger states get a bigger voice than they do based on statehood alone, and smaller states get a bigger voice than would based on population alone.
Compromise is increasingly seeming to be a lost art in politics, and I think that is playing a major role in the division of our nature.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:01PM
I didn't spend too much time learning about the US election system, it took me long enough to understand the (at least as ridiculous) EU parliament voting system. I tend to care about things that have an effect on me before bothering to care about stuff that doesn't.
And trust me, coming from a rather small country in the EU, I can absolutely understand the plight of, say, Delaware. But I can also understand how it must be frustrating for Californians and Texans to notice that any single person from Maine has more say in a US election than their own whole extended family.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @06:33PM (3 children)
The original purpose of EC because rich people were afraid that stupid, uneducated, and illiterate people would vote.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @07:28PM
And you, as well as the rich people of the 1780's, both seem to have decided that "rich" and "stupid" are antonyms, when we've seen plenty of evidence that they aren't. As long as your society has the concept of inherited wealth, the odds that there will be a substantial number of rich morons out there are pretty much 100%.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:07PM
Well, then it's obvious that the electoral college failed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:58PM
Let's leave Runaway out of this. He's got a gun.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @04:55PM (25 children)
But I'm still grateful that the electoral College kept Clinton out
Mixed bag, but what the hell, it's up to us to nominate better people in the first place.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @05:01PM (3 children)
Rephrased: I'm grateful the pendulum swung so absurdly far in my direction.
(Pendulums swing both ways.)
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:44PM (1 child)
I'm in Australia, and despite what a dumpster fire Trump is, I'm still glad he beat Clinton. The DNC-MIC-Media were clearly gearing up for a war in Iran. Given our treaty obligations Australia would have been dragged in. You may have an egotistical idiot for President, but he still saved millions of lives and a few trillion dollars just by accidently derailing that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:20PM
You act like the danger has passed with his election, but the battle to eject him has continued throughout his presidency. We have an elections year, and the deep state, the media, and warmongers are geared up to put their Manchurian candidate into power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:59AM
:-) I will assume your general rule applies here too...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:09PM (16 children)
Clinton gave Trump the POTUS by buying the DNC which blocked out Bernie who would have won. Blame Clinton for my vote for Trump.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @05:38PM (13 children)
One of the things I have learned here on SN that I did not know before is that it is the Democrats are the ones responsible for:
* Trump running for president
* Republican party allowing him to run
* Republican party letting him survive the weeding out process
* Republican party nominating him
* Republican party NOT invoking party emergency measures to un-nominate him
* Republican party electing him
* Republican party members trying to dress up and put lipstick on every horrible thing Trump began doing once in office
It's all the Democrat's fault!
Blame the Democrats!
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:48PM (4 children)
>It's all the Democrat's fault!
Looking at the burning cities that have been brutalizing people with their police that have been in the hands of democrats for decades. Their fault sounds about right. :)
(Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @06:31PM (3 children)
It is amusing that Democrats are who want more police accountability and Republicans, starting with Trump, who oppose that because they "support" the police.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:00PM (1 child)
It is amusing that Democrats straw-man Republicans as not wanting police accountability because Republicans don't follow ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards) and 'defund police' mantra. Yet, at the same time not address the core point that the problem of police accountability, brutality, and inner city violence is primarily an issue in areas controlled by Democrats at every level of power for decades. Why are democrats incapable of solving the problem and why do they need Republicans, who don't have this problem, do what democrats say?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @07:45PM
It is the single AC on SN who brought up that burning cities and brutal police are the fault of Democrats somehow.
Doesn't one logical fallacy deserve another?
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @07:48PM
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really want major reforms to policing in the US.
You can tell this because neither major party presidential candidate has said they want major policing reforms, pretty close to zero governors are saying they want more policing reforms, and even at the local level politicians of both parties are offering their constituents everything they can think of to placate them except more policing reforms.
And before you say "But Joe Biden said ...", if you look at what he's offering, it's basically identical to what the Obama administration was doing, which was writing a bunch of new rules for local cops to follow if their department had been caught behaving badly, and then doing nothing when those new rules were ignored just like the old rules had been ignored. The watchword for American policing for decades has been to have all the right regulations on paper, and then the cops on the street do pretty much whatever they feel like, and when the public complains about an individual officer's conduct at worst that officer will get fired and hired by another department to do what they did before.
Politicians of both parties support the cops, including unjust and illegal policing, because they want to be able to have people who will bust heads on their behalf whenever they want. Never mind the law.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @06:46PM (4 children)
Democrats just can't admit they are the reason they lost.
Last I heard Hillary was blaming everyone else except herself for losing.
Is she still doing that?
Poor Bill.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @07:48PM (3 children)
That is a comfortable retreat for Republicans who just can't admit that their own actions are why we have Trump.
Free Clue: you're supposed to pick THE BEST candidate, not THE WORST.
Regardless of what the other party does.
But no, pick the most horrible human being there is, and blame the Democrats. It's all the democrats' fault.
Republicans: pick someone who is educated, understands how to govern, isn't controlled by obsession over ratings and the media.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:36PM (2 children)
their own actions are why we have Trump
Yeah, they won! I mean, really! The gall!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:26PM (1 child)
Since they won, they should be proud of it. Not blaming the Democrats that we have Trump.
Or is it also the Democrats' fault that Republicans blame the Democrats for Trump being president?
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @09:59PM
No, you don't get it. I blame the democrats for not putting up somebody better, that is actually in opposition. The party leaders (financiers) are perfectly happy with Trump
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:41PM
It's all the Democrat's fault!
Damn right! Look what they put up against him, another transparently corrupt machine politician. It's the same crap they played against Nixon and got the same results.
It is by design. Now they use Trump to hold the country hostage with nowhere else to run. It works very well in fortifying the present power structure. Deny all you want, it is a one party system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:39PM
RNC = Coke. DNC = New Coke. I voted Iced Tea.
Yes it is the fault of the DNC. Instead of being a populist party they became the other corporate party. It isn't that you win, it is what you win.
The DNC has not produced a viable candidate in 2020 either. Not because they don't exist, but because... either centerists don't want to work with the DNC, or the DNC doesn't want to work with centerists. In either case, it doesn't matter. They are still the other first party.
The only people participating in a two party system in the U.S. are those voting third party.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @10:32PM
They definitely should have followed the Democrat Party's example, blocking Sanders from the nomination. That worked out well for the Democrats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:40PM
There. FTFY.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:09PM
Actually BLM did that when they crashed Bernies podium and made him look weak.
(Score: 2) by tizan on Monday July 13 2020, @08:14PM (3 children)
Huh no ...its the FBI announcing the reopening of the case against Clinton that swung the pendulum in PA, MI and FL...something less than 100K votes swing in these 3 states gave us the disaster we are in now.
Forget bad candidates ...any politician by definition is a bad candidate...anybody else would've better than Trump whether you agree or not... the state we are in proves it.
So it is a combination of EC, Bernie bros in a few states and the FBI director making announcement 15 days before the election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:45PM
Which is why Comey got fired, they had to make a real good show about disavowing him after he gave the election to the GOP. Now Trump has normalized criminal behavior at the highest level so corruption will just get worse.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:38PM (1 child)
You think as a Bernie supporter I need to prefer HRC over Trump? No, fuck you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @08:26PM
So petty spite is what dictates your choice? You could have voted 3rd party. I'm guessing you're another troll using Sanders as another tool for your narrative.
Get lost you trumpsucker.
(Score: 2, Informative) by epitaxial on Monday July 13 2020, @05:00PM (36 children)
Why is it the democrats only want to get rid of the electoral college when a republican wins? I didn't see any of these statements or problems during the Clinton or Obama presidencies.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 13 2020, @05:02PM
Probably because Clinton and Obama won by getting more votes.
The only people that win by getting fewer votes are Republicans.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 13 2020, @05:03PM (21 children)
Because, Hillary actually won the "popular vote" by the slimmest of margins. The Dems don't think they should ever lose, and especially not when they control all of those inner city population clusters.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @05:08PM (7 children)
I like how you put it that Democrats "control" inner city population clusters.
Maybe if the Republican party represented the interests of more people, they might "control" those dense population clusters?
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:14PM (1 child)
They effectively do. They've had to put a hell of a lot of money and effort into brainwashing with class/race/sex/etc... divisiveness, but it's paid off pretty well if your only goal is power.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:46PM
It sure is weird how you've been brainwashed to believe you're a free independent thinker while parroting rightwing pundit garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:29PM
Ever seen city districting? Gerrymandering on steroids.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:32PM (3 children)
The Republicans already control the deplorables. Therefore it follows, that if Republicans manage to reduce more citizens to third-world status, they get more votes. That appears to have been their strategy for decades.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:56PM (2 children)
You are your own worst enemy. Want to know why I don't vote democrat? Those that survive institutionalized murder by planned parenthood (and if you don't think so, try undergoing an abortion on yourself and then let me know what your opinion on it is), are then called "deplorables" by democrats. Want to see a democrat advocate for evil? Just have the evil person be a transgender. Want to ruin the Olympics for women? Allow men to claim to be women and then compete and absolutely PWN the women. Oh yea, sounds like the democrats are really looking out for the common person. You're a party that stands for evil and wrong and you don't even know it because your moral compass is pointing at yourself. My moral compass doesn't point at me or whatever my party decides is the "correctness" of the day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:52PM
That's it, mandatory k-12 reeducation camps for conservatives. Don't worry, we'll treat you better than all those kids in cages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:02PM
In other words, you are too stupid to be allowed to vote. Noted. Officers will be along shortly to collect you. Have a nice time at the irdeplorablization camp! (Oh, that "moral" compass? It's a watch. And, it's broken. Sorry.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:17PM (1 child)
The best way to get rid of the Democrats is to get rid of Republicans at the first favorable opportunity - and viceversa, just break the two party deadlock by voting one of them out of existence. In the vacuum created, more parties/independents will get their voices heard, chances are some of them will be reasonable enough by comparison to push the Dems out of existence after their first legislature without Reps.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:24PM
Well, that way would be effective but it'd be quicker to just line any office holder with a major party affiliation up and shoot them. Guess it depends on what your criteria for "best" are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Monday July 13 2020, @06:44PM (9 children)
I wouldn't call 2.87 million votes (out of ~129 million) the slimmest of margins.
What I call the slimmest of margins is the number of votes that won 3 states for Trump (WI, MI, and PA); a grand total of 78,000 (23K, 11K, & 44k respectively).
I do see why we need something like the EC. We could possibly divide the EC votes for a state by the percentage of the vote totals? That way you don't have the votes of red voters in CA, and blue voters in AL having no effect on the election, plus the candidates couldn't just ignore the flyover states.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:24PM (8 children)
Another way of looking at things is that she won California by a wider *margin* than she won the popular vote. If California split on a normal margin, she'd have lost the popular vote and electoral vote alongside.
The idea of a electoral college is to avoid having state radicalism play a major role. If California goes batshit leftist, which they have, with your idea it'd make every other state's elections pretty much meaningless. This is a *really* bad idea in a nation that's already increasingly divided.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Monday July 13 2020, @08:51PM (7 children)
No, she won the popular vote by 2.87 million votes. The state's totals would not have changed that.
We don't have a real batshit leftist group in the US. We have Democrats (center-right) and Republicans (extreme-right). I'm guessing you lean Republican; just remember that everything else is left when you are extreme right.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:05PM (1 child)
What a coincidence!
Almost exactly the number of Covid-19 infections in the US? Just saying.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:24PM
We've sailed past that long ago. Thanks Trump!
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:58AM (4 children)
I love how you decide to state things so matter of fact without even bothering to check the data. She won California by more than 4.2 million votes. In other words her entire "popular vote victory" is a fraction of her margin in California.
And left/right is a completely meaningless qualifier in today's times. If you haven't realized it, the actual battle right now is authoritarianism vs libertarianism. California is tearing down statues, destroying artwork, actively stoking selective xenophobia, and the hub for political censorship and retribution on an international scale. It's so ironic (but typical) that San Francisco is also the center of endless virtue signaling. Unimaginably wealthy people signaling their virtue as they step over the masses of homeless, impoverished, and human excrement on the way to their billion dollar open office platforms of social justice. It's like something out of a satire, but it's real life. The democratic party in general is turning towards a degree of political authoritarianism come fascism that has not been seen in the (developed) world in many decades. And it never leads to good things. I am liberal but have gone from being luke warm on the democratic party to vehemently anti-democrat - a transition I expect many are currently going through.
Some who know no better might find it unusual to call the democratic party fascist. After all Wiki tells me that only right wing parties can be fascist. Here is the Fascist Manifesto. [wikipedia.org] That is *literally* the book on Fascism that motivated and guided the Fascist Party. You'll probably find you agree with just about everything they stood for on paper. You filthy fascist! Of course I kid on that part - they're not bad ideals by any means. So why do we now just call them the fascists? Because they acted like fascists in pursuits of their ideals - and that behavior has nothing to do with left or right wing. About the time you're trying to destroy people for their political opinions, destroying statues for what they (in your mind) politically represent, and destroying artwork because it's "problematic" - you've become a fascist, and that is how history (once all of this stupidity settles down) will remember you, once again. Oh and let's not forget the rewriting of history to pretend that you can't be fascist because you're liberal - that is something out of 1984.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:50PM (2 children)
It simply does not matter if CA had a margin of 4.2 million. The popular vote is the grand total for the entire US. Why would a arbitrary section of it matter?
I more or less agree on your last two paragraphs. My only comment is that both parties have been strongly authoritarian for quite a long time. That and the fact that both parties seem to run by the extremists.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:37PM (1 child)
Because the popular vote implies she was widely supported in America, but somehow unjustly lost. In reality the election looks like:
1 State: Wins by 4.2 million votes
49 States: Loses by 1.3 million votes.
It paints a much different picture than "won the popular vote." Of course it's an accurate fact to state that she won the popular vote, but it's misleading. Even more so because I think California's version of "liberalism" is somewhat 'special'. Those guys loving a candidate is not something to praise.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday July 15 2020, @03:09PM
Again, why does this matter? Are the CA voters somehow not valid because of some nebulous "special liberalism"? No, their votes count too.
Disagreeing with their politics doesn't give you the right to disenfranchise them.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 15 2020, @02:43AM
Great post.
And for Azuma's benefit, you see I'm not the only liberal disgusted by the DNC. Your tactics are failing.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday July 13 2020, @06:58PM
1.1% -- that's not all that slim. Clinton got 51.1% of the vote:
65,788,583 vs. 62,955,363
The obverse of that particular coin: Trump lost the popular vote quite soundly.
--
Democracy: Where any two idiots outvote a genius.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @05:05PM (2 children)
It's not when a republican wins. It's when someone wins by the electoral college, but not the popular vote.
Clinton and Obama both won by both popular and electoral college votes.
If a republican won the popular vote and lost the electoral college vote, I can't even imagine how much whining we would hear about how we should get rid of the electoral college.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:15PM (1 child)
About the same amount. Morons gonna moron.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:53PM
You'd be one of the ones bitching right now and calling for reforms if HRC was POTUS.
Of course you get the benefit of not having to actually face yourself, so you get to hide behind your usual bluster.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dale on Monday July 13 2020, @05:08PM (2 children)
Obama won the popular vote and the electoral college. You wouldn't complain about EC vs popular vote in cases when both give the same result. The only reason/time to complain is when they give differing results (like Bush/Gore & Trump/Gore).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:15PM
But as a Kenyan he wasn't eligible to be on the ballot.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:08PM
Obama didn't win the popular vote. There is no popular vote to be won. It's like you claiming you won the foot race because you went around the track the fastest, but you ran through all the hurdles instead of jumping over them. You're trying to apply a set of rules to a contest that has a completely different set of rules.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday July 13 2020, @06:04PM
That's because both Clinton and Obama won both the popular and Electoral College votes. There was no point for the Republicans to complain. You can bet, though, that if there was a split, Republicans would have been up in arms.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @07:54PM
There have been 6 people who have become president of the United States without winning the popular vote:
- John Quincy Adams (Democratic-Republican)
- Rutherford B Hayes (Republican)
- Benjamin Harrison (Republican)
- Gerald Ford (Republican, but he didn't get elected by anybody so he's kind of irrelevant)
- George W Bush (Republican)
- Donald Trump (Republican)
So it's no surprise that the Republicans are fine with this system, and the Democrats aren't.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by tizan on Monday July 13 2020, @08:24PM (3 children)
The Republican as they are today will never win the popular vote, implicitly the party of white rich men. Geroge W Bush won it because of 9/11...so if you discount that the last Republican to win the popular vote on his own agenda was H.W in 1988.
They have no interest in women, gays, lower middle class, colored people (all these categories overlap a lot ) but i don't see anything in their agenda for these different categories of people.
Right now they are getting the vote of white people who think they can become the 1% but who do not realize ...its only 1% and there is not place for all of them.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:09PM (2 children)
What? He was elected the first time in 2000. 9/11 only explains the reelection.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:12PM
oh right, popular vote. whoops
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tizan on Wednesday July 15 2020, @03:04PM
He did not win the popular vote in 2000
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:06PM
Depends on who you talk to. I was already in favor of the National Popular Interstate Vote Compact before the election, then afterwards I got to point at the results and say, "See, the NPIVC would've prevented this."
Personally I voted for Gary Johnson because I couldn't stomach voting for either of the first-party candidates.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"