Gbear wrote: » And they also get independent representation in their own state legislatures. It is particularly in a fully federalised state like that where there is a fair bit of devolved government that you don't want or need that kind of lopsidedness in representation in the executive branch. The president should represent the single entity of the US and every citizen should be represented equally. They vote him in not as citizens of Texas or Kentucky, but as citizens of the US.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I agree with what you're saying but not really in countries the size of the US when it comes to actual political votes like presidencies or mad stuff like leaving the EU. Remove the system instead of fixing it and policies change. Policies that may be to detriment of an entire population of an area shouldn't be dictated by other larger areas with different goals of a lack of repercussions. Should Ireland have even been given a choice in Lisbon or Nice if the majority of Europe wanted it? I mean, I certainly wouldn't be happy if a few large countries passed legislation that meant all the small ones didn't matter. I'm arguing for something here that is done all the time. The EU was built with its own version of the electoral system for a reason. Same as the US. Adjustments should be made if it continues to cause strife. I'm a fan of proactive changes rather than populist reactive ones. Inflammatory paragraph: I truly believe that if every vote were swapped, then Hillary would be president and people would laud her for representing the nation, and not a few big Red/Blue states. People may not agree, but we certainly wouldn't be talking about this in an anti-Trump thread if it had happened. It would be in the anti-Hillary thread by different people.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Well, the way the college works is that the states elect the president of the (united states). The country is a confederation of states after all. Think, without the college, candidates would only ever campaign in New York, California and perhaps Texas. The fact is that most states arent swing states and are therefore homogenous to an extent in their political preferences. The college works well in that it gives weight to those states that tend to be in the middle. Otherwise they might as well leave the Union.
MrFresh wrote: » Don't know a lot about this topic but what would happen in areas where the local authority is in favour of segregation if it was left up to them?
Sean.3516 wrote: » The answer is that there’s a difference between desegregation and forced integration. Since the Supreme Court decision Brown V Topeka in the 1950s, schools are no longer legally segregated. This doesnt mean that there weren’t still black majority schools in black majority areas and visa versa. Bussing may have been a step too far as it was essentially forced integration. ie. children from black majority schools and white majority schools had to be bussed into different areas and different schools. Obviously this is problematic in that parents actually like choosing a school for their kids. Also it led to alot of white flight from certain areas. In my opinion, the government has a duty to prevent legally mandated segregation but forcing racially balance in every school was an unwarranted incursion that led to unintended consequences.
pixelburp wrote: » Conversely, because swing states command priority, many candidates do not visit "unimportant", less vital states. I only have a CPD Grey video I can't put my hands on, but I'm confident that many campaigns focus on the swing states, to the detriment of everywhere else. Ohio has basically become weaponised, and I'd argue the reverse is now true to the spirit of the system: swing states commanding attention and become even less representative of the whole, than if it was a purely a popular vote. 2 times in the last 5 cycles is not quite a trend but with America more divided than ever, and gerrymandering showing political systems are being grossly manipulated, then it stands to reason the Electorial College is equally prone to disproportionate results. A system that could have a president theoretically elected on 22% of the popular vote feels brittle.
BluePlanet wrote: » The point of representation is to represent People, not Land Area. Fast forward 50 years and you'll see an even more glaring democratic deficit as people continue to migrate toward cities and rural areas continue to depopulate. At some point the rationalization of representing "states" rather than "people" becomes entirely bankrupt. Right now the democratic deficit in USA is in the low millions, what happens when it's 50 million or 100 million? Revolution?
Sean.3516 wrote: » Unpopular opinion here. Gotta say, I thought Kamala Harris’s attack on Joe Biden in the debate was pretty cynical and nasty. There’s absolutely nothing racist about being against federally mandated forced bussing. One can be against it for a plethora of reasons other than racism (mainly that it’s a terrible policy that failed to achieve it’s aims in many places it was implemented which is why Biden believed it should be the choice of the local authority.) Also it led to white flight to the suburbs in many cases removing the tax base from schools that needed funding the most. Also maybe it should be the choice of the parent where to send their kid to school? Joe Biden’s no racist. He’s a clumsy, doddery, weird old gaffe machine who frequently sabotages his campaigns with stupid comments like when he called Obama the “only clean black presidential candidate”. He would be consigned to the dustbin of political history had Obama not chosen him for VP But he ain’t a racist. Nobody has any proof of that. So yea, cynical move by Kamala, Should be noted though she’s a vicious and skilled debater who’s just thrown herself back into contention even if her means where quite immoral.
“Well guess what?” Biden continued. “At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.”
Midlife wrote: » Forciung racial balance, yes perhaps not. But this notion that segregration nolonger exists because it's illegal is also incorrect. There are parallel communities, black towns near white towns. Jobs black people do and jobs white people do in some areas. People speak differently. Simply ending segregation and saying 'well technically a black kid can now win a scholarship to Harvard' is not enough to repair the historic injustice done. You should fund the hell out of services and particularly education in some areas. That would be a better move than forced integration.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Think, without the college, candidates would only ever campaign in New York, California and perhaps Texas. The fact is that most states arent swing states and are therefore homogenous to an extent in their political preferences. The college works well in that it gives weight to those states that tend to be in the middle. Otherwise they might as well leave the Union.
Gbear wrote: » They have representation skewed in their favour but somewhat proportional in the House, and they have massively skewed representation in the Senate. .
Gbear wrote: » The very fact that Mitch McConnell has carte blanche to ignore the Democratic majority of the House and has successfully stolen a Supreme Court seat off the back of being elected from Kentucky clearly demonstrates how much power smaller states can wield. .
Gbear wrote: » If every individual had a vote of equal value, then it's absurd to suggest they would only campaign in New York and California. Every single vote would have equal value..
Sean.3516 wrote: » There is a completely rational fear of the tyranny of the simple majority where by the 51% can cram down their views on the other 49%. The system is designed to mitigate against this.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Whether or not candidates campaigned there, the point is that the people there would probably still decide the election, since people in large urban areas tend to be homogenous in their politics. Again you’re missing the point of the electoral college which is that the states elect the president. Each state is allocated influence proportional to it’s population and the state’s legislatures decide how those votes are allocated. The majority of state legislatures opt for the electoral college.
Sean.3516 wrote: » I honestly don’t understand the argument that the system is skewed one way or the other. Especially when you consider that since FDR, the presidency essentially alternates between a Republican and a Democrat every 8 years with the exception of Carter, Ford and H.W Bush who were one-term presidents and all three were suceeded by someone from the opposite party.
Kimsang wrote: » It seems a race to the bottom, an olympics of who is the most oppressed.
Gbear wrote: » And instead what you see is the opposite: a minority cramming their views on the majority. I don't know on what planet that could conceiveably be seen as better. Only a cynical one where you happen to be the one benefitting from it.
Gbear wrote: » They wouldn't decided the election anymore than any other group of people. If they're the largest voting block then they should have the strongest voice. That's the point. Any concern for the tyranny of the majority is rendered nonsense because we're currently seeing a tyranny of the minority with the electoral college propping up an oligarch class that are dismantling the systems of democracy, checks on power and making a mockery of the rule of law.
Gbear wrote: » Because the Republican party don't represent half the American population. In 3 of the last 4 of their victorious presidential campaigns they have lost the elections' popular votes and will almost certainly lose the next. The demographic shifts are being ignored by the system and whole swathes of the population are completely disenfranchised at the executive level.
eire4 wrote: » What actually happened is that at the 2018 elections the North Carolina compliment of seats in the house of represetatives went 10-3 in favour of Republicans despite the fact that the share of the vote was almost a 50 50 split between Republicans and Democrats. The Supreme court ruling while it did not officially say sure rigging election boundaries is ok effectively did so by leaving it with state legislatures who are now empowered to rig election boundaries as blatantly as the Republicans did in North Carolina. At this point as this ruling has further entrenched really the idea that the US is a democracy is a joke. There are of course lots of things that can be debated and argued over. This however is not one of them. The supreme court have dealt a massive blow against Democracy here. Rigging elections via gerrymandering is wrong end of story no grey area no debate to be had. But here once again the supreme court as they did with citizens united have made it very clear that they have not only no interest in democracy but are in fact openly interested in ensuring that the US becomes a full on banana republic which is a very scary prospect given the US like it or not is the most powerful country on the planet.
Dog Man Star wrote: » This is my last prediction on the 2020 election. Every statement here is a fact, not an opinion. 1. Trump won by 144,000 votes in total in the swing states in 2016 2. The mid-terms was a landslide Democratic wave 3. Black/Hispanic/Women/LGBT have never been so motivated to vote against Trump 4. Trump's base has not expanded at all since 2016 and stands at 36% 5. There are 20 democratic candidates all unified in their objective for the 2020 election As facts stand, Trump will be voted out by an overwhelming majority in November 2020, at least 8%, statistically realistic 15% Once out, he will immediately be arrested a la Roger Stone and face a criminal trial. Facts matter.
Cody montana wrote: » We can only hope. He will go down as the worst American president ever.
Dog Man Star wrote: » There are still at least five Trump supporters in this thread. Their ignorance knows no bounds. One of them is an Irish stooge in a US Army. A trussed-up Paddy fighting for a government that would deport hundreds of thousands of Irish Americans without a glimmer of humanity. Yet here he is. Question him and face a ban.
pixelburp wrote: » I don't know why journalists insist on asking politicians about tangential happenings beyond their radius, presumably just to feed the 24 hour cycle; it did throw up this hilarious golden nugget during questions at the g20, Trump asked what he thought of Bussing as a policy. Now, to be fair, I hadn't heard of Bussing either til Harris broadsided Biden, but this is the sitting President of the United States. An ... expectation that he knows the key pillars of recent, controversial history isn't unreasonable.https://www.twitter.com/EliStokols/status/1144872511240200192 "Asked again about busing, Trump says: "It has been something that they've done for a long period of time. There aren't that many ways of getting people to schools.""
