PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[Ducay]

I love how people are magically up in arms about the Electoral college all of the sudden ; that system sucks, sure, but why is no one complaining about the senate which is about 1000000000x more inequally weighted (2 senators regardless of population). So you think California is getting the shaft on the college? They're about 50x more shafted in the Senate, which, arguably is much more impactful than the presidency.

But at the end of the day, as mentioned, the senate and college are set up this way because that is how they were constitutionally when the danged union was formed. Its like complaining about OTL vs. SOL vs. 3 points for win in the NHL; sure, you can talk about how your team would have won under different rules, but these are the rules we play by and your hypothetical doesn't matter. If you don't like it, get an amendment passed. Until then, these be rules of the duel.


**Flames would have won West in 2015 if we give 3 points for wins on Tuesdays, 2 points for shootout wins, but only a half point for OTL if they occur before 11pm

[FlamesAddiction]

I actually think an electoral system is necessary in a huge country with unique regional interests. Otherwise you risk centralizing power too much in the same centers over and over. Popular vote is great if you want majority rules, and as long as you are in the majority.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I love how people are magically up in arms about the Electoral college all of the sudden ; that system sucks, sure, but why is no one complaining about the senate which is about 1000000000x more inequally weighted (2 senators regardless of population). So you think California is getting the shaft on the college? They're about 50x more shafted in the Senate, which, arguably is much more impactful than the presidency.

But at the end of the day, as mentioned, the senate and college are set up this way because that is how they were constitutionally when the danged union was formed. Its like complaining about OTL vs. SOL vs. 3 points for win in the NHL; sure, you can talk about how your team would have won under different rules, but these are the rules we play by and your hypothetical doesn't matter. If you don't like it, get an amendment passed. Until then, these be rules of the duel.


**Flames would have won Pacific in 2015 if we give 3 points for wins on Tuesdays, 2 points for shootout wins, but only a half point for OTL if they occur before 11pm

Well when the union was formed, the framers of the constitution also thought it was okay to own other human beings. So we should just let the decisions of men from 200+ years ago to make our decisions now, right?

It's the same BS as the Second Amendment argument. The founding fathers had no idea what kind of weaponry would exist in the future, nor what the political climate of the country would be. The world and this country were vastly different places back then, and we need to change things as times change.

I'd be more than happy to also alter the 2 senators/state thing, they're both outdated and unfairly benefit the interior states where a minority of the population lives.

[troutman]

Gwen Ifill, Host Of 'Washington Week' And 'PBS NewsHour,' Dies

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...m_content=2041

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Ducay

but why is no one complaining about the senate which is about 1000000000x more inequally weighted (2 senators regardless of population). So you think California is getting the shaft on the college? They're about 50x more shafted in the Senate, which, arguably is much more impactful than the presidency.

Disagree, the houses should be balanced where the population and the regions are represented. That is the way our Senate should be also, equal number (say 5 or 6) for each province. That helps to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I actually think an electoral system is necessary in a huge country with unique regional interests. Otherwise you risk centralizing power too much in the same centers over and over. Popular vote is great if you want majority rules, and as long as you are in the majority.

It also doesn't make sense to change things after the fact. Candidates generally won't campaign very hard in areas they know they have no hope of winning and instead focus on the "swing states". If it comes down to popular vote, the strategy becomes totally different, in which case it makes far more sense to spend more time in large population centres, as even a small swing in the proportion of votes can be a large number of total votes.

In a tight race for popular votes, like this one was, the end results are pretty meaningless.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Well when the union was formed, the framers of the constitution also thought it was okay to own other human beings. So we should just let the decisions of men from 200+ years ago to make our decisions now, right?

It's the same BS as the Second Amendment argument. The founding fathers had no idea what kind of weaponry would exist in the future, nor what the political climate of the country would be. The world and this country were vastly different places back then, and we need to change things as times change.

I'd be more than happy to also alter the 2 senators/state thing, they're both outdated and unfairly benefit the interior states where a minority of the population lives.

Again, if people want an amendment to change it, they can create a bill and have it passed. Until then, these are the rules. My point is arguing your result under a different system has no real impact.

No different than the second amendment, if enough people want it changed, it will get amended. Until there is enough support for that change, it won't and you have to live by it. This is how their democracy operates.

Doesn't matter what the founding fathers thought, if enough people now support whatever changes people want, you can make those changes.

[photon]

The other alternative to changing it is that coalition of states that agree to give their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. If that coalition can hit 270 then it doesn't require a change to the constitution.

A few EC members are now advocating the idea of voting against Trump:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...p-trump-231350

[nik-]

Originally Posted by troutman

Gwen Ifill, Host Of 'Washington Week' And 'PBS NewsHour,' Dies

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...m_content=2041

Oh damn, that really sucks

[Lubicon]

The Electoral College is designed so that highly populous States do not carry a large advantage over less populous States and perhaps allowing just a few large States to pretty much determine the outcome of the election. Each State has Electoral College votes equal to the number of Senators plus House or Representatives for that State. It's not a bad idea in theory and seems to work most of the time. Compare to Canada for example where the two most populous Provinces have a huge influence each and every election regardless of how any of the other Provinces vote.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I love how people are magically up in arms about the Electoral college all of the sudden ; that system sucks, sure, but why is no one complaining about the senate which is about 1000000000x more inequally weighted (2 senators regardless of population). So you think California is getting the shaft on the college? They're about 50x more shafted in the Senate, which, arguably is much more impactful than the presidency.

But at the end of the day, as mentioned, the senate and college are set up this way because that is how they were constitutionally when the danged union was formed. Its like complaining about OTL vs. SOL vs. 3 points for win in the NHL; sure, you can talk about how your team would have won under different rules, but these are the rules we play by and your hypothetical doesn't matter. If you don't like it, get an amendment passed. Until then, these be rules of the duel.

Were you in a coma for the two years (until 9/11) following the Gore/Bush election year? Electoral college reform was a constant topic in political news cycles for that entire period.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by photon

The other alternative to changing it is that coalition of states that agree to give their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. If that coalition can hit 270 then it doesn't require a change to the constitution.

A few EC members are now advocating the idea of voting against Trump:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...p-trump-231350

Which is ridiculous.

"Hey guys, democracy spoke, but were going to hijack the process to get what we want"

I read there are some States where if the EC member does this their vote is automatically vacated and they officially quit their position or something. I think it was Pennsylvania but could be wrong.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Which is ridiculous.

"Hey guys, democracy spoke, but were going to hijack the process to get what we want"

I read there are some States where if the EC member does this their vote is automatically vacated and they officially quit their position or something. I think it was Pennsylvania but could be wrong.

You realize EC vote holders refuse to follow the will of the people quite regularly? It just doesn't ever have an effect on the actual election and is usually more of a protest vote.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You realize EC vote holders refuse to follow the will of the people quite regularly? It just doesn't ever have an effect on the actual election and is usually more of a protest vote.

Yah, I would say 6 out of 6456 of the last electoral votes sure seems like quite regularly.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yah, I would say 6 out of 6456 of the last electoral votes sure seems like quite regularly.

Do believe those 6 votes were undemocratic?

Why would the system bother giving the power to refuse the EC vote if it wasn't meant to be wielded?

[Ducay]

The schemes and plots about the EC potential outcomes remind me of the delegate math and schemes of Bernie supporters heading into the DNC.

"All we need is 382 superdelegates to switch sides and the entire eastern seabord's delegates to vote against their state's results!"

[GirlySports]

i think in this election trump would have won the popular vote if the popular vote was the measurement, like Brexit.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Do believe those 6 votes were undemocratic?

Why would the system bother giving the power to refuse the EC vote if it wasn't meant to be wielded?

I personally do.

I view these guys as antiquated part of a system that is there for "history". Similar to the Queens rep here in Canada.

If you feel these guys should be able to vote how they want, it essentially means that Joe blow's vote is meaningless.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Which is ridiculous.

"Hey guys, democracy spoke, but were going to hijack the process to get what we want"

I read there are some States where if the EC member does this their vote is automatically vacated and they officially quit their position or something. I think it was Pennsylvania but could be wrong.

I have to agree with you. Something like this wouldn't be good for anybody. Trump supporters would likely revolt, and honestly I wouldn't blame them. This would be the equivalent of the Governor General in Canada refusing to appoint a PM from the party that won the most seats. People would freak out!

I am not even sure that Romney or Kasich would want to be the guy seen as circumventing the usual process. If it failed, they would be done in the eyes of half the Republican base. It would be a career killer. And if a Democrat was chosen, there would likely be chaos and a political crisis for the next 4 years.

[PsYcNeT]

I'm pretty sure the system is in place to literally prevent a guy like Trump from becoming president.