The Popular Vote is Irrelevant

[9-10ths_Penguin]

States are divided up into "counties" mainly for administrative, political and for legal significance. I do not treat counties as equal due to number of people, but by historical relevance.

These counties also contain subdivisions we know as "towns", which are relevant not because of population, but because they are historically significant by how the electoral college provides them a equal voice relatively comparable to a large town.

That's because the electoral college (roughly) treats people as equal: the voice of someone from a city is just as important as the voice of someone from a rural area.

Out of curiosity: why are you against equality?

 

[JakofHearts]

That's because the electoral college (roughly) treats people as equal: the voice of someone from a city is just as important as the voice of someone from a rural area.

Out of curiosity: why are you against equality?

You and I have a fundamentally different view on equality. The EC has been in place since the beginning, and your founding fathers showed good foresight and wisdom to put this kind of system in place. I think there were some alterations, but the meat of the system is still employed today. I do not see anything overly wrong with it, or see any alternative that would appreciate the rest of the American people.

Your position has some noticeable consequences which you seem to have not taken heed to. Certain states would have a lot of power over the rest of America (and the powers that be could use that to their advantage), and it would not represent accurately or fairly on Americans in more humble areas across the country. Cities are still significantly influential, but with the current system, it at least provides a platform for the rest of America (minorities in intellect, lifestyle, religion, faiths) to be on equal footing to some degree with the more "influential" parts of America.

Spoiler

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You and I have a fundamentally different view on equality.

Mine: one citizen, one vote. What's yours?

The EC has been in place since the beginning, and your founding fathers showed good foresight and wisdom to put this kind of system in place.

*My* founding fathers? I'm not American.

I think there were some alterations, but the meat of the system is still employed today.

Nonsense. When the electoral college was adopted:

- college members were free to deliberate and choose a president without being restricted by their home states.

- only white male landowners had a say in who the college members were (or be college members themselves).

- slave-owning states got extra representation in the college based on their (non-voting) slaves.

I do not see anything overly wrong with it, or see any alternative that would appreciate the rest of the American people.

Your position has some noticeable consequences which you seem to have not taken heed to. Certain states would have a lot of power over the rest of America (and the powers that be could use that to their advantage), and it would not represent accurately or fairly on Americans in more humble areas across the country. Cities are still significantly influential, but with the current system, it at least provides a platform for the rest of America (minorities in intellect, lifestyle, religion, faiths) to be on equal footing to some degree with the more "influential" parts of America.

Spoiler

A person in a city would be no more influential than a person in the country.

And minorities tend to have higher representation in cities. By reducing the say of urban areas, you reduce the voice of minorities you hint at caring about.

 

[Watchmen]

Yeah, they are called "counties" and Trump won 2,626, Hillary reportedly got 487. Trump also won over 30 states which sounds pretty popular to me.

There are 62 counties in New York State, and Trump won 46 of them, Clinton won 16 according to Snopes - a heavily liberal site. Other sources vary slightly but there is no doubt that Trump won by a considerable amount against HIllary.

Source: See a Map That Shows Exactly Why Trump Won

Spoiler: Of Interest

Liberals just want to whine because Trump won.

I voted for Trump. I would make the number of electoral proportionate to the district's population.

 

[Watchmen]

Then gerrymandering would rule.
Why not just make it proportional?

I like it.

 

[Akivah]

The change in power depends on the level of popularity of a candidate. The thing that matters isn't the raw number of voters in each state; it's the difference between the popular vote in a state and its current "plurality" threshold for winning, so the question of whether a state would increase or decrease in power varies from election to election and candidate to candidate.

I think you're saying that a state might choose to abandon the Electoral College system if their popular vote is lopsided for one party, and not as I was saying based on the overall decrease in percentage of voting power.

Ummm..it could probably go either way. I think a multitude of factors would be considered before a state voted to overturn the Electoral system.

But another point just occurred to me. The Hillary crowd is just talking about the total number of votes nationwide. Do you think all county, city, state divisions should be irrelevant and who wins in each jurisdiction shouldn't matter? Should it only be the total number of votes in the entire nation that is used to determine the Presidential election?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you're saying that a state might choose to abandon the Electoral College system if their popular vote is lopsided for one party, and not as I was saying based on the overall decrease in percentage of voting power.

Ummm..it could probably go either way. I think a multitude of factors would be considered before a state voted to overturn the Electoral system.

But another point just occurred to me. The Hillary crowd is just talking about the total number of votes nationwide. Do you think all county, city, state divisions should be irrelevant and who wins in each jurisdiction shouldn't matter? Should it only be the total number of votes in the entire nation that is used to determine the Presidential election?

That's what I've been saying the whole time, I thought. The best measure of the will of the people is the popular vote, so IMO, it's best to use that as the criteria instead of some proxy that you hope will give you the result you want.

Actually, there are aspects of having a separate election for President that seem wonky to me. IMO, it makes more sense to just make the house leader for the party that controls the House of Representatives the President (like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. do with Prime Minister), but then we're talking about pretty fundamental changes to the American system of government, like getting rid of the division of powers.

 

[Akivah]

but then we're talking about pretty fundamental changes to the American system of government, like getting rid of the division of powers.

Getting rid of division of power means that the people that have power, have to vote 'not to have it'. Like that's going to happen.

 

[esmith]

That's what I've been saying the whole time, I thought. The best measure of the will of the people is the popular vote, so IMO, it's best to use that as the criteria instead of some proxy that you hope will give you the result you want.

Actually, there are aspects of having a separate election for President that seem wonky to me. IMO, it makes more sense to just make the house leader for the party that controls the House of Representatives the President (like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. do with Prime Minister), but then we're talking about pretty fundamental changes to the American system of government, like getting rid of the division of powers.

That's the reason we are a Federal Constitutional Republic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's the reason we are a Federal Constitutional Republic.

Because you like having your government deadlocked? When the House and President are from different parties, everything grinds to a halt.

 

[esmith]

Because you like having your government deadlocked? When the House and President are from different parties, everything grinds to a halt.

Yeah, it's called checks and balance. I at times thinks what the government does or doesn't do is not right but I prefer it over any other government.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yeah, it's called checks and balance. I at times thinks what the government does or doesn't do is not right but I prefer it over any other government.

Even during Obama?

 

[metis]

Because you like having your government deadlocked? When the House and President are from different parties, everything grinds to a halt.

Coupled with the problem that if things are not working well, it can be difficult for so many to try and determine who's at fault.

As for me, I much prefer the parliamentary system, and the above is just one reason why I feel this way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Coupled with the problem that if things are not working well, it can be difficult for so many to try and determine who's at fault.

As for me, I much prefer the parliamentary system, and the above is just one reason why I feel this way.

I think it's especially weird when combined with fixed election dates. In the parliamentary system, if a "confidence bill" (e.g. the budget) fails to pass, then the session ends immediately and an election happens within a few weeks to give the voters another chance to elect a government that will work together. In the American system, not only are things set up to create more deadlocks, it has fewer methods available to deal with them.

 

[metis]

I think it's especially weird when combined with fixed election dates. In the parliamentary system, if a "confidence bill" (e.g. the budget) fails to pass, then the session ends immediately and an election happens within a few weeks to give the voters another chance to elect a government that will work together. In the American system, not only are things set up to create more deadlocks, it has fewer methods available to deal with them.

It's funny you mention this because last night I was thinking that a vote of confidence bill probably could be introduced on Trump's first day in office, and I'm not too sure he could survive it because of members of his own party probably would desert his ship.

BTW, have you noticed that in the congressional hearings thus far, every single one of his appointees do not agree with his Russian assessment?

 

[esmith]

Even during Obama?

I may have disagreed with 95% of Obama's policies and actions but I still respect the Office of the President but that does not mean I have to respect the person holding the office.

 

[JakofHearts]

Mine: one citizen, one vote. What's yours?


*My* founding fathers? I'm not American.


Nonsense. When the electoral college was adopted:

- college members were free to deliberate and choose a president without being restricted by their home states.

- only white male landowners had a say in who the college members were (or be college members themselves).

- slave-owning states got extra representation in the college based on their (non-voting) slaves.


A person in a city would be no more influential than a person in the country.

And minorities tend to have higher representation in cities. By reducing the say of urban areas, you reduce the voice of minorities you hint at caring about.

I do not know how a city fairly represents more conservative views, or cowboys and coal miners, or the amish etc; there are diverse lifestyles and beliefs that are directly contradictory to the liberal states like California. I think my only beef with this debate is that there is a double standard... and because liberals are just whining because Trump won.

In anycase, as the OP pointed out, even if we went with the popular vote, not only would liberals still have lost, but the consequences are still there which they are still dumbfoundedly ignoring. The EC was adopted as a compromise to the differing views the founders had. Some opted for citizens to directly vote for who they wanted as president, others through Congress, and some through it's State legislatures, and others wanted State governors to elect. All have their concerns which was why the EC came about. I'm not saying it's perfect, but as a hypothetical, there are some real concerns and consequences if we listened to liberals mantra on the popular vote.

It is true that the EC provided almost equality with the southern slave states, but that wasn't the fault of the EC, slavery was the problem, which we know the Republican party led by Abraham Lincoln sought to abolish.

PS - Where are you from?