Breaking: Biden will not seek re-election

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by devo22

how about - now I know this is radical, but hear me out - how about you scratch that EC bull#### and just, I don't know, throw the vote of every single voter in the US in one ####ing basket so that every vote actually counts the same?

Will obviously never happen, but I'll just never get my head around this.

Because that isn't federalism. There are no "united states" (lower case intended) when they don't even exist. What would be the purpose of states, then? To have different license plates? It is the states that gave birth to the national government, not the other way around. The national government exists at the behest of the people and the states. We aren't amending the constitution to abolish the electoral college because we don't want to, so the states won't ratify it. Who would vote to diminish their voice in Washington DC?

And for the ends-justify-the-means crowd, be careful what you wish for. California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Ohio are the top five states in population per electoral vote.

What's next, adding up the total goals scored and allowed over the regular season and award the team who wins that the Stanley Cup? Then every goal matters equally.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

But if you did that how would you keep podunk southern states like Arkansas in charge? that is the point of the EC, the US's whole political history is a struggle between south and north, still is, the North has the money, the population, the industry, the south has the Government and the trailer parks, that's the balance

While we're on the subject the US isnt a democracy and never has been, it's a republic, two wholly different things

It's "podunk" because you don't live there. Let someone say that about East Vancouver and you'd be indignant.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It's "podunk" because you don't live there. Let someone say that about East Vancouver and you'd be indignant.

The average house price in Arkansas is 200,000 the average price in Vancouver is 1,300,000 so a little indignation would be appropriate

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The average house price in Arkansas is 200,000 the average price in Vancouver is 1,300,000 so a little indignation would be appropriate

Yeah, I'm sure that "average house price" has everybody just peachy in East Vancouver.

Have you been to Arkansas or do you like to sit on the internet in East Vancouver and call it podunk because some of them don't vote the way you would?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Yeah, I'm sure that "average house price" has everybody just peachy in East Vancouver.

Have you been to Arkansas or do you like to sit on the internet in East Vancouver and call it podunk because some of them don't vote the way you would?

I have been to Arkansas, it is the very definition of Podunk

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I have been to Arkansas, it is the very definition of Podunk

So have I, and I found it quite nice. Where did you go?

I find a lot of areas in B.C. lovely too, but East Vancouver is not one.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by butterfly

So have I, and I found it quite nice. Where did you go?

I find a lot of areas in B.C. lovely too, but East Vancouver is not one.

straight down the i40 to Georgia, not a thing made the state memorable at all

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

straight down the i40 to Georgia, not a thing made the state memorable at all

I-40 connects Memphis and Oklahoma City. You clearly missed Hot Springs National Park and I'm assuming you did nothing in Little Rock. Did you stop and chat with anyone? Your opinion comes off as saying "I've been straight down the Yellowhead Highway and Alberta is a podunk place," as though the opinions of citizens who live there don't matter, and they're all monolithic.

What does 'podunk' even mean, dull? As opposed to the excitement of East Vancouver? I've been straight down the BC-7A before that got decommissioned and it wasn't cool.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Because that isn't federalism. There are no "united states" (lower case intended) when they don't even exist. What would be the purpose of states, then? To have different license plates? It is the states that gave birth to the national government, not the other way around. The national government exists at the behest of the people and the states. We aren't amending the constitution to abolish the electoral college because we don't want to, so the states won't ratify it. Who would vote to diminish their voice in Washington DC?

And for the ends-justify-the-means crowd, be careful what you wish for. California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Ohio are the top five states in population per electoral vote.

What's next, adding up the total goals scored and allowed over the regular season and award the team who wins that the Stanley Cup? Then every goal matters equally.

Right, because that's totally the same as a majority rules system of election. A perfect analogy if ever I've seen one.

Here's the trade off for a pure popular vote election of president: The Senate. States are still well represented in the senate in a disproportionate manner to the population. Wyoming and North Dakota get 2 senators each. California and Florida gets 2 senators each. There's your balance of power.

There's zero reason to keep the electoral college. It's a holdover from a bygone era and flat out anti-democratic.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I-40 connects Memphis and Oklahoma City. You clearly missed Hot Springs National Park and I'm assuming you did nothing in Little Rock. Did you stop and chat with anyone? Your opinion comes off as saying "I've been straight down the Yellowhead Highway and Alberta is a podunk place," as though the opinions of citizens who live there don't matter, and they're all monolithic.

What does 'podunk' even mean, dull? As opposed to the excitement of East Vancouver? I've been straight down the BC-7A before that got decommissioned and it wasn't cool.

You arguing something isn’t podunk when you have no understanding what podunk means in the context being used. Wouldn’t it be prudent to first ask for clarification then argue he is wrong.

[PepsiFree]

lol at someone saying Arkansas is lovely but East Van isn’t.

Clearly never been to either place.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

While I don't necessarily disagree, I do find it amusing that if we look at Canada's last federal election we appointed a Prime minister whose party did not win the popular vote and gave the PQ 32 seats with only 1% more popular vote than the green party who got 2 seats.
I'm not sure which countries have it most right, but it's definitely not Canada or the US

Or the UK, where Labour just won 63 per cent of the seats in parliament with only a third of the popular vote.

Of course, proportional representation has its own problems. It gives more power to fringe parties, makes coalition governments the norm, and those coalitions reliant on back-room wheeling and dealing that can drag on for months and months.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Or the UK, where Labour just won 63 per cent of the seats in parliament with only a third of the popular vote.

Of course, proportional representation has its own problems. It gives more power to fringe parties, makes coalition governments the norm, and those coalitions reliant on back-room wheeling and dealing that can drag on for months and months.

Yeah. I'm not sure I want a system where the balance of power is always held by either the greens or the PPC.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

There's zero reason to keep the electoral college. It's a holdover from a bygone era and flat out anti-democratic.

It’s in the constitution is the reason. And there’s zero chance of the constitution being amended to the disadvantage of most of the states that would need to support the amendment. The U.S. will fall apart as a federal state before the electoral college is abolished.

[PepsiFree]

A conversation about the pros, cons, and value of the electoral college is different than a conversation about how likely it is to be abolished.

[indes]

We should scrap parties all together and just vote for the people in our riding and a leader. Then they can form a government and hash it out.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Because that isn't federalism. There are no "united states" (lower case intended) when they don't even exist. What would be the purpose of states, then? To have different license plates? It is the states that gave birth to the national government, not the other way around. The national government exists at the behest of the people and the states. We aren't amending the constitution to abolish the electoral college because we don't want to, so the states won't ratify it. Who would vote to diminish their voice in Washington DC?

And for the ends-justify-the-means crowd, be careful what you wish for. California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Ohio are the top five states in population per electoral vote.

What's next, adding up the total goals scored and allowed over the regular season and award the team who wins that the Stanley Cup? Then every goal matters equally.

Umm...the bolded is exactly the problem? Your vote is worth less in those states.


In 2016, Trump won Arizona (11 EVs) with 1.25N votes to 1.16M for Hilary.

Hillary won Massachusetts (11 EVs) with 2.0M votes to 1.1M for Trump.

3.16M vs 2.35M = 11 EVs each.


Or even worse.

Florida was 4.6M for Trump to 4.5M
NY was 4.6M to 2.8M the other way

9.1M votes vs 7.3M votes = 29 EVs each

or

Maryland 1.68M vs .94M = 10 EVs to Hillary
NC 2.36M vs 2.19M = 15 EVs to Trump

3.3M votes = 15 EVs to Trump
3.87M votes = 10 EVs to Hillary

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

While it feels logical to us the schism this would cause in the Us is massive. Basically New York and California would determine each election.

It's more that the urban centres would determine each election, at least for President. The President would be the President of the Large Cities of America, basically.

Which given the disproportionate power that less populous states have in the Senate especially might not be a bad way of doing things, I'm sure there are reasonable arguments on both sides.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Because that isn't federalism. There are no "united states" (lower case intended) when they don't even exist. What would be the purpose of states, then? To have different license plates? It is the states that gave birth to the national government, not the other way around. The national government exists at the behest of the people and the states. We aren't amending the constitution to abolish the electoral college because we don't want to, so the states won't ratify it. Who would vote to diminish their voice in Washington DC?

And for the ends-justify-the-means crowd, be careful what you wish for. California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Ohio are the top five states in population per electoral vote.

The people of the US have wanted to abolish the EC for years:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/i...toral-college/

For years, a majority of Americans have opposed the Electoral College. For example, in 1967, 58 percent favored its abolition, while in 1981, 75 percent of Americans did so.

However, recent political trends have linked the Electoral College to partisan preferences:

In 2000, while the presidential election outcome was still being litigated, a Gallup survey reported that 73 percent of Democratic respondents supported a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct popular voting, but only 46 percent of Republican respondents supported that view. This gap has since widened as after the 2016 election, 81 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of Republicans affirmatively answered the same question.

Lest anyone think that eliminating the EC is some new idea coming out of Democrats' frustration with losing elections but winning the popular vote:

In total, over the last two centuries, there have been over 700 proposals to either eradicate or seriously modify the Electoral College. ... Congress nearly eradicated the Electoral College in 1934, falling just two Senate votes short of passage. In 1979, another Senate vote to establish a direct popular vote failed, this time by just three votes. Nonetheless, conversation continued: the 95th Congress proposed a total of 41 relevant amendments in 1977 and 1978, and the 116th Congress has already introduced three amendments to end the Electoral College.

[GGG]

If you look at the interstate electoral compact it’s up to 209 electors approved and 50 pending.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nati...rstate_Compact

So this means that just 11 ECs need to pass the legislation before direct voting of the president will be law. Some republicans have vowed to challange the constitutionality of these bills so that is still potentially an obstacle.

But if you look at potential states that could ratify this. Places like Pennsylvania and Arizona which are fairly purple would be sufficient Wisconsin would put it one seat shy.

Will these current swing states in presidential elections vote to diminish their power? Possibly, it may be valuable for the representatives of these states not to be has heavily correlated with presidential outcomes.