Electoral college is fucked

tjf1967 wrote

When I see coaches map and think of  using the popular vote I picture rural areas being indentured servants to cities.  I'm not a scholar on this stuff but it appears to work.

Yeah, but the map is a pretty simple representation of what happened. The same gerrymandering that went to give the GOP huge bonus numbers in the house is cooked from the same recipe book as this electoral stuff as far as I'm concerned. Everyone is so butthurt about not pissing off the people in the country that they don't want an actual democracy?

ml242 wrote

 . Everyone is so butthurt about not pissing off the people in the country that they don't want an actual democracy?

I never thought I would hear you say such a thing. That said I couldn't agree more with you

tjf1967 wrote

When I see coaches map and think of  using the popular vote I picture rural areas being indentured servants to cities.  I'm not a scholar on this stuff but it appears to work.

That's the opposite of the truth, though.

Money from the rich states flows to the poor states:



And money from rich areas flow to poor areas:



In state government, money flows out of New York City, Long Island, and Westchester in the form of tax dollars, and is used to support government jobs in Albany, Buffalo, and elsewhere. It's also used to support government agencies like ORDA whose sole purpose is to prop up financially needy places like North Creek.

Yes, the electoral college is needed to ensure that everyone has a voice. No, it should not be done district by district, as Coach wants. In 2012, about 1.5 million more voters voted for democrats in the house, but democrats were down by something like 30 seats. A presidential election using similar methods would give similar results.

The only way ml's conclusion regarding that graphic can be valid is if the district lines in example three are determined both unilaterally and for the sole purpose of affecting the results.

If, on the other hand, there are specific, valid reasons for the districting and it's a bipartisan determination, than nobody has a basis to complain about the result.

I suspect the reality is more the latter than the former, but I'm not an expert on such stuff.

The argument against ml's straight national vote is that then politicians would focus only on turnout in the areas most friendly to them, increasing polarization. Democrats would focus on pounding New York, LA, Miami, Philly, and other cities, completely ignoring states without big metropolitan areas. That would be bad.

Harv's idea of rotating primaries, and other ideas that keep every state important are much better ways to approach electoral college issues.

But why is everyone focusing on the supposed monoblock of the city and not the country monoblock GOP stronghold? I'm sure at least one person on the south side of Chicago accepted Trump's argument of "What do you have to lose?" Why is one ok and the other isn't? 1 person 1 vote is the way to solve that.

As far as gerrymandering goes, you can look up crazy districts, the maps are certainly out there.

Yeah, JTG should google "gerrymandering controversy" if he thinks that electoral district construction is a fair system.

I'm arguing that that guy on the south side of Chicago would never get to hear that side from the candidate himself because Republicans would go nowhere near Chicago because they know they can't win there.

We should promote an electoral system that gives both sides to as many people across as many states, across both cities and rural areas as possible. A national popular vote wouldn't do that.

(I'm saying candidates have to get out there and campaign, not just put the policies on a web page and call it good)

Well lets hope the new president from out side of the beltway  puts an end to some of the BS.  That's all I got for you dude, the weather map certainly is not helping.

mattchuck2 wrote

Yeah, JTG should google "gerrymandering controversy".....

No duh!, that shenanigans happen.  However, I doubt the intent of districting, if not abused, is to fix elections.  Also, there is probably enough unfair gerrymandering on both sides to render the results somewhat fair!

JTG4eva! wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

Yeah, JTG should google "gerrymandering controversy".....

No duh!, that shenanigans happen.  However, I doubt the intent of districting, if not abused, is to fix elections.  Also, there is probably enough unfair gerrymandering on both sides to render the results somewhat fair!

The maps were redrawn by brilliant people in the GOP that used big data way more effectively than ever before. They were ahead of their time and completely brilliant compared to the dnc counterparts. Unfortunately we are left with a system that is rigged. Here is a book about it:

https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628

Thanks for the info ml!

The popular vote is often close to 50/50, but the House of Representatives is not.

I think this chart says what I was saying.  If those rural states that are getting most of the financial aid are left out of representation because of the demographics of the popular vote l they would be at the mercy of whatever the most demographically populous  areas are.   They would be left out of the decision making.    

Are you following Trump on twitter again??

At least he tells it like it is.

ml242 wrote

I remembered this post from a month or so ago yesterday and then I said to myself, "Brownski, don't be a dick. People have a right to change their minds" but since we're in the ancient history business...

ml242 wrote

Isn't it true that elections are rarely landslides, and that for once we can be grateful that there's an electoral college to prevent a disaster like Trump becoming president?

Like I said, everybody has a right to change their mind

OH SNAP

Brownski found an oppsie.

Hmm, changed mind or situational ethics ML ?

Seems like a lot of people oppose it when it hurts their candidate but are for it when it helps their candidate.