General / Off-Topic Sorry from AMERICA!!!!

[Becks]

And a popular vote would intensify this. The EU solved this quite well with the degressive votimg thingy I forgot the term of. Basically a MEP in a country with a smaller population needs less votes to get a mandate than a similar MEP in a country with a bigger population.

I'd look the term up but I'm in lecture and my professor stares at me

 

[Boomer Kay]

The EU solved this quite well with the degressive votimg thingy I forgot the term of. Basically a MEP in a country with a smaller population needs less votes to get a mandate than a similar MEP in a country with a bigger population.

Germany has solved it, the EU not so much:
http://voxeu.org/article/inequality-european-parliament-representation

That's the "internal number of how well represented a vote in a country is" (lower is better):

 

[Adept]

And a popular vote would intensify this. The EU solved this quite well with the degressive votimg thingy I forgot the term of. Basically a MEP in a country with a smaller population needs less votes to get a mandate than a similar MEP in a country with a bigger population.

I'd look the term up but I'm in lecture and my professor stares at me

I don't think it would. The US already has a version of the EU:s double majority voting. It's called the senate

 

[KellyR]

That's probably not what Riktar means.

I think he means that the candidates would focus solely on the states needed to win the election and neglect the rest. I doubt that that's in the interest of the country as a whole.

That's what's happening now. You think they give a hoot about Rhode Island, Maine, Oklahoma, Kansas? Heck no. Those states don't produce enough Electoral votes. They concentrate on New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and such. "Why should I spend the resources campaigning in Oklahoma, or worse yet, Rhode Island? Not nearly enough Electoral Votes. But Illinois or Ohio? Oh, heck yeah."

 

[Don Alvarez]

That's what's happening now. You think they give a hoot about Rhode Island, Maine, Oklahoma, Kansas? Heck no. Those states don't produce enough Electoral votes. They concentrate on New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and such. "Why should I spend the resources campaigning in Oklahoma, or worse yet, Rhode Island? Not nearly enough Electoral Votes. But Illinois or Ohio? Oh, heck yeah."

They ALL matter, as even a cursory glance through the history of US presidential elections will tell you, some elections have been won by very narrow margins in the EC, with the contest of 1876 decided by a single EC ballot. EVERY STATE MATTERS, as the authors of the Constitution intended they should. It is the United States of America - not the People's Republic of America.

 

[Adept]

That's what's happening now. You think they give a hoot about Rhode Island, Maine, Oklahoma, Kansas? Heck no. Those states don't produce enough Electoral votes. They concentrate on New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and such. "Why should I spend the resources campaigning in Oklahoma, or worse yet, Rhode Island? Not nearly enough Electoral Votes. But Illinois or Ohio? Oh, heck yeah."

It's not just that either. If a state is seen as reliably red of blue, no need to campaign there either.

 

[Boomer Kay]

They ALL matter, as even a cursory glance through the history of US presidential elections will tell you, some elections have been won by very narrow margins in the EC, with the contest of 1876 decided by a single EC ballot. EVERY STATE MATTERS, as the authors of the Constitution intended they should. It is the United States of America - not the People's Republic of America.

It's rather the oligarchy of America where both campaigns were bought by the same super rich donors. First you get all uppish about Soros and Clinton, then trump puts a Soros lackey in his cabinet and it's all hunkydory?

The rest migh just be lots of smoke and mirrors.
If the constitution intended that, why not just put the presidency up for auction in the first place?

 

[Don Alvarez]

It's rather the oligarchy of America where both campaigns were bought by the same super rich donors. First you get all uppish about Soros and Clinton, then trump puts a Soros lackey in his cabinet and it's all hunkydory?

The rest migh just be lots of smoke and mirrors.
If the constitution intended that, why not just put the presidency up for auction in the first place?

I never once in this entire FORUM mentioned Soros, let alone got "uppish" about him.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I never once in this entire FORUM mentioned Soros, let alone got "uppish" about him.

Sorry, that was a general 'you' as in 'the american public'.
Mostly trump supporters, but also many of the Bernie ones.

Bernie is still criticizing those picks .. trump supporters? I don't know .. that "we won" doesn't sound all that convincing any more.

 

[Don Alvarez]

Sorry, that was a general 'you' as in 'the american public'.
Mostly trump supporters, but also many of the Bernie ones.

Bernie is still criticizing those picks .. trump supporters? I don't know .. that "we won" doesn't sound all that convincing any more.

That's because they're getting tired of explaining why and no one's listening. If I were on the left, I'd be taking notes so I don't forget and screw up that big again in 2020. Seems to me for the last month and a half its just been an extension of the same accusations and insults that didn't work in the election.

 

[Boomer Kay]

That he's lining his own pockets?

http://fortune.com/2016/12/01/donald-trumps-giant-conflict-of-interest-with-his-new-hotel/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-national-day-party-25-february-a7488046.html

What notes are there to take?
How much more obvious does it have to get?
Why is this "the left's" (there's no such thing in the us. Sanders would barely qualify as moderate conservative in full political spectrum countries) problem? They did not put him in charge.

 

[Riktar]

That's probably not what Riktar means.

I think he means that the candidates would focus solely on the states needed to win the election and neglect the rest. I doubt that that's in the interest of the country as a whole.

That is happening now, and more so than it would under a proportional vote system. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "swing states"? The non-swing states get very little attention.

That's what's happening now. You think they give a hoot about Rhode Island, Maine, Oklahoma, Kansas? Heck no. Those states don't produce enough Electoral votes. They concentrate on New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and such. "Why should I spend the resources campaigning in Oklahoma, or worse yet, Rhode Island? Not nearly enough Electoral Votes. But Illinois or Ohio? Oh, heck yeah."

With a popular vote, the west and east coasts would get major campaigning and the middle of the country would pretty much be ignored. And yes, I do realize that as it stands now "swing states" tend to get more attention. Maybe Hillary Clinton should have made the time to campaign in Wisconsin instead of ignoring it.

We could debate this back and forth with point after point from both sides. At the end of the day the popular vote has only differed from the Electoral College 5 times. It's rare, it does happen but for the most part it does not.

It's the system we have. If enough states decide to change it, then it changes. But I don't think you are going find 37 states ready to vote for this change.

 

[Don Alvarez]

That he's lining his own pockets?

http://fortune.com/2016/12/01/donald-trumps-giant-conflict-of-interest-with-his-new-hotel/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-national-day-party-25-february-a7488046.html

What notes are there to take?
How much more obvious does it have to get?
Why is this "the left's" (there's no such thing in the us. Sanders would barely qualify as moderate conservative in full political spectrum countries) problem? They did not put him in charge.

You're not following. I'm talking about winning the next election. You seem to still be looking for ways to undo the last one. And I could care less about placing the US in the context of other countries. Here, they're "left"

edit: Besides, you will never convince me that had the other side won, they wouldn't be looking for ways to line their pockets from the office.

 

[Boomer Kay]

You're not following. I'm talking about winning the next election. You seem to still be looking for ways to undo the last one. And I could care less about placing the US in the context of other countries. Here, they're "left"

edit: Besides, you will never convince me that had the other side won, they wouldn't be looking for ways to line their pockets from the office.

No no. Answer the question please.

How much more obvious does it have to get?

 

[Riktar]

How would it mean that? If you think one vote per person is wrong, do you also feel that "larger cities" control the outcomes of state elections? Should rural votes get a multiplier in state election as well, so the cities wouldn't "control elections"?

I see your line repeated, but I never see any justification given. Why are voters in New York and Los Angeles worth less than those in Tennessee or Arcansas?

What justification? My crystal ball is just as cloudy as yours when it comes to the future. Ultimately it comes down to conjecture on both our parts.

But since you have asked for justification I will ask you to show me where a voting system switched from the electoral college to a popular vote and things worked out better.

And I could easily ask if voters in big cities are worth more than rural populations.

 

[Don Alvarez]

No no. Answer the question please.

How much more obvious does it have to get?

Why should I? You've redirected and skirted my points entirely.

But for amusement's sake let's try this. You've cited two articles that have given me no information I wasn't already aware of. So my answer is it's already obvious to me that Trump owns hotels. If, by the day of swearing in, he hasn't taken the appropriate action to comply with all laws and regulations set forth in the Constitution regarding conflict of interest between the Office of the President of the United States and that of a private citizen and business owner, then by all means have him impeached.

Mike Pence is now your President.

How's that?

 

[Adept]

And I could easily ask if voters in big cities are worth more than rural populations.

They wouldn't be. They would be equal. Currently the votes are not equal, sometimes with a ratio of five to one.

 

[Riktar]

They wouldn't be. They would be equal. Currently the votes are not equal, sometimes with a ratio of five to one.

You could easily switch that ratio of 5:1 to 1:5 being applied to the number of states being campaigned in since lower population states would be ignored in favor of high density populations. Heck, pick the 10 most populated states in the country to campaign in and don't worry about the rest.

It's all a numbers game.

 

[Don Alvarez]

They wouldn't be. They would be equal. Currently the votes are not equal, sometimes with a ratio of five to one.

You could easily switch that ratio of 5:1 to 1:5 being applied to the number of states being campaigned in since lower population states would be ignored in favor of high density populations. Heck, pick the 10 most populated states in the country to campaign in and don't worry about the rest.

It's all a numbers game.

Hooray Alaska!

Look, the point is old and tired. It's probably as old as the Constitution itself. I'm quite sure somebody brought it up at the convention, they were pretty bright guys. It would be valid, if we were a Democracy. It would be valid if the Presidential election were a popular vote. Thankfully, it's not, on both counts. Do you seek to change that? Fine. That's one of the great things about our country. We have avenues for that. Standing out in the street blocking traffic and commerce crying about it is not one of them.

 

[Sunleader]

You could easily switch that ratio of 5:1 to 1:5 being applied to the number of states being campaigned in since lower population states would be ignored in favor of high density populations. Heck, pick the 10 most populated states in the country to campaign in and don't worry about the rest.

It's all a numbers game.

Its a Numbers Game and your losing it.

Smaller States are Smaller they cost less to Campaign and are cheaper to improve.
Meaning they offer fairly good chances to convince them and even impress by fullfilling promises with them which can grant large Majorities.
Bigger States offer more Votes. But in exchange its almost impossible to get large margins over the other Parties because different regions within that State have to be addressed independently.

1% in a Big State wont make up 10% in a Smaller State.
And when each Vote Counts the Big States might actually have less influence than you think.
Because its not like one Party will turn em around to 100%

So the Party which manages to get large Turnouts in several Smaller States will have an advantage over the Party which only Focusses on winning a few Big States.

If each Vote Counts. The Size of States does not matter that much.
Because wether you tour 10 Cities in a Big State or 10 Cities in 10 different Small States doesnt matter.